I've known about this so-called exploit for months. I often use it to quickly check to see if a specific user has any files shared, and what files they are. Basically, its the same as a Bearshare or Limeware HTTP server listing shared files and providing links to donwload.
This comes from the fact that the FastTrack protocol transfers and requests files via the HTTP protocol, thus any HTTP speaking application (such as a web browser) should be able to do the same as a Morpheus client, which is really only a fancy web browser.
In fact, the OpenFTP has a program which does in fact scan IP address ranges from the 1214 port number, indexes the files, and then provides these for searching on the OpenFT network. They even have a memory-dump function which dumps the entire memory block of the Linux KazAa client kza (no longer available), and searches for IP addresses to index.
I would question the so-called 'group' the BBC contacted. It's either an ultra-liberal doomsday security group like that of Steve Gibson or is a very good (?) attempt by the RIAA to scare people off the FT network, which now has peaked at over 700,000 connected nodes.
But as for a security threat, there is no concern. The only files accessible on the internal web server are those which have been specifically selected to be shared, and a dynamic wwwroot is then generated based on selected directories (usually just My Shared Files).
As others have mentioned, the availability of the fuel for these fuel cells is what is going to kill or break it. I wouldn't much mind filling up my laptop while I pump my gas, as long as it only costs me 33 cents extra. You just know if this technology takes off the methanol industry will recognize the demand and increase their bulk prices to be more expensive in smaller quantities. That's how it was with gas and oil when the car became mainstream.
It's going to be a tough haul convincing consumers, especially because most don't see that they *are* acutally paying something when they plug in their laptop or cellphone to charge. You also can't beat the distribution of electrical outlets. There may be a fuel cell depot at every gas station and news stand, but I doubt there will be one right beside your bed.
Personally, I'm still holding off on my hydrogen from air bit, or burning oxygen for fuel. We have plenty of "fuel" in the air, why not use it? And what about energy from plain old H2O we've been hearing about? Burn both the Hydrogen and Oxygen and you have no waste.
Ultimatly, we will have to see. For now I would be for a hybrid battery/fuel cell slot system where you can get the instant fill-up when you need it, but still not be left in the dark when the minimart in All Pains, Michigan doesn't cary your fuel cell brand.
IMO, the real reason for cheat detection is not because of some moral reason to stop cheaters, but because of laziness.
What I'm getting at is really, how many professors actually look at the code to a program and not just run it to make sure it does what it's supposed to do? I had a CS teacher once tell everyone to make sure we output to a file so he could run the programs in batches and compare the outputs to what should be the output easily. Then he would run the source through a cheat detector and viola, he's done for the night.
I'm not saying professors are lazy, but programming is a rare example where this kind of detection could proove useful because often times it doesn't matter what the source of a program is, how poor or good it is, just that it does what you want it to do. This may seem like bad engineering, but its a real life fact in CS. English teachers are required to read the papers of their students -- thus they'll know a cheater off bat. But CS professors are not held to the same requirements, or let alone standards.
The problem with computer cheat detection is that there is, currently, no match for human cheat detection. You don't hear of a cheat detection system for English papers, why for CS?
The solution I think will be to have professors that actually go through the source code of each student. A particular case that I know of is a professor that would go through a project and comment on the source line by line, right along with your comments with things like "Good idea, great OOP use." or something like "You might try a linked list like this...". Not only was this invaluable assistance leading to better programmers, it was VERY easy to spot cheaters, because...he actually checked the source.
Why am I saying cheat detection is bad? Well, I'm certainly not a cheater. I know of several people who love CS -- not for actually liking programming, but for rushing through with assignments and turning them over to those who are helplessly lost for a quick profit. I don't like cheat detection because it not only can implicate those who don't cheat, but it allows professors to be lazy. If I was a suit at a university, I would bet on the professor I mentioned earlier who goes through source commenting than one who analyzes outputs and then runs the source through the latest cheatdetect.pl script.
It may be bad popping up ads when you're surfing the web, but what about just whenever. That's what happened on my system.
I, like Chet & Eric of the linked article do support programs having internal ads to support themselves as free software. However, monitoring users behavoirs is another story -- that's your computer and most contracts (as I have heard from a lawyer friend) cannot "sign" that away; for example your landlord cannot include a clause stating he has the right to monitor your mail, who you talk to, etc. and by living in the property he owns, you forfeit those rights, and if you do not agree with them you cannot live there. Well, folks, this is exactly what most of these programs are having you agree to. The fact is, they're illegal contracts. You cannot gather personally identifiable information (it's identifiable because they are able to deliver targeted advertisement thus they must have a system to know who you are) if you signed the rights away or not.
I have accepted that companies do this and there really isn't a way of getting around it (heck, I don't really care what they do with the info, I'm not going to buy something from any ads they use and that'll be my contribution). So I have tolerated these commercial bombardments. That is until something strange happened.
All of a sudden while I would be at my desk in the same room (this is at work mind you), I would notice activity on the monitor. Going over to look at it, I would notice an ad window had mysteriously popped up, when no programs were running and I hadn't been using the computer for hours. In the morning I typically had several windows to close after the nights ad-popping fun.
Thinking it was a web site which some how introduced a popup delay, I dismised it at first. But it got worse. It was impossible to work on a Word document without having an ad popup and steal focus from my document. I also came to the realization when you close a browser window, its process ends and thus a delay javascript wouldn't work.
I finally decided that it must be some program launching these ad windows. Searching the running process list, I noticed an interesting program happily running. Savenow was the culprit. This program was actually popping up windows on my personal desktop, on my computer (yes, I do own it) and collecting web browsing data in the background, even when its associated product wasn't running! Deleting the savenow executable, I was free of the ads yet outraged of how this company violated my privacy and my computer, and also comprimised the security of my employer. What if they could learn something about our project based upon my web browsing habits and sell that to another company?
After that incident, I went in with a resource editor on every single ad-supported program on my computer and removed the ad resources. I also installed ad-blocking software. Still though, I do occassionaly get ads and various brandings. I have since persuaded my boss to let me put my Linux box on the network, but still, how long until we see these ads and tactics on Linux? How long until these ad programs start embedding ads in your paid for software, or interfacing with your printer driver to print a banner ad out on every page?
The point I'm trying to make is I am all for advertising and realize it does support free products quite nicely, but when it invades my privacy and makes me sign illegal contracts, I get angry. Anyone would. And something should be done about it. I don't have the resources, I can only not buy the products they force on me and put a dent in their success rate thus no ads. But someone with the resources and time should go after these bastards.
First of all, it's impossible to acheive any type of ratio on random data. Good quality random data such as that from random.org simply can't be compressed. Period.
Data compression works by finding patterns in seemingly random data. A standard video stream really doesn't contain that much unique information. That's why we can compress it pretty well without loosing too much data. However, random data is 100% unique and you must have, say, 8 bits representing 8 bits because there is no other way to represent it without loosing information.
The claims by this company are impossible. I read their technical description and I'm still trying that around in my head. It doesn't make sense. It's called the rule of limited entropy and no data compression breakthrough can break it. You can't just make data appear out of thin air.
Is it just me, or is this another company looking to swindle over a few VC investors? The only type of program I see here is the lie, buy, and sell high kind -- I don't buy it.
Wouldn't you rather hunt for the latest RPM, and then hunt down the twenty others needed to satisfy it's dependancies? Or how about go the source route and have to download and compile a new version of gcc because said program doesn't compile on 3.0.x versions? Only to realize once you./ it, it segfaults like crazy?
God, I love Linux!
Note: this is not a troll. It's an actual synopsis of what happened to me YESTERDAY.
Keeping with IBM's tradition of success with their DeskStar line (my 75 gig just failed the other day), I have had three microdrives before finally returning it and purchasing a 320 MB CompactFlash card for $120.
The drive never did actually fail, it only refused to do things like spin up, or would lock up when writing to it. It always seemed to not want to work when I needed it most. And this was for use with a digital camera, handheld, and laptop with CF adapter. I can't imagine using the device for lesiure.
The thing that got me so enraged was the drive would look like it was writing to the disk, then when I would get home from shooting pics or after I copied a huge file there would be only a few random pictures or the filesystem would be corrupt -- not even salvagable.
I'm sure it wasn't my digital camera or any of my other hardware because I tried it in several friends cameras and sure enough it was finicky beyond use. Who knows? Maybe I just got a bad lot -- but I've heard from many others, especially on the digital photography web site that while they would love to use the drive, how can they get it to be reliable? I've never had flash media complain or give me any kind of trouble.
I'd also like to comment on battery usage. Without the MD, I would get about 6-8 hours usage from my iPAQ, however using the drive sparinkly and under normal use that figure drops to around 2-3 hours, 4 tops. Using a CF flash card, I can't even notice a difference (although there probably is one). The microdrive is clearly very demanding of power -- it also heats up *quite* nicely till you can barely hold the device (great for this time of year during the cold though).
Don't even ask about digital cameras. Having to deal with a power-sucking CCD is enough, and when you bring the MD into the picture you have a good *two dozen* shots before the dreaded battery warning. And this is on 1800 mAH NiMH batteries. What's the point in being able to store 700 pictures on one media when you constantly have to switch batteries (assuming you have a few pre-charged sets).
The MD is a great technical feat -- there's no doubt about that. But I would questions its everyday use outside the tradeshow and webzine review for both professionals and lesiure use. I head some of the Delkin MDs are better, but I'm still sure there are some problems. With a 2GB version on the horizon for IBM's model, the microdrive will probably get better. But that begs to ask the real question as to if CF flash media will become cheaper $/MB as the demand is higher and the market is more competitive.
You should note that X10.com is a company, while X-10 is a protocol, which (albeit patented and requiring royalty) other companies sell as well. NEVER buy from that horrid X10.com company -- buy from Home Automation instead.
It's bad what some companies do and then an entire technology gets a bad taste because of it...
What does this new OS provide that we don't already have and are not already capable of doing? You can already watch TV on your computer and view your computer's monitor on your TV. Regular NTSC resolution isn't that high anyway and is easily handled by a computer. You can already store television programs on your computer -- in fact, we even have things like TiVo which are consumer devices just for that purpose.
Also via X-10 hardware we can control just about anything from our PCs -- including air conditioners. The problem isn't availability, it's just that most people don't really need to control their microwave or other hosehold devices/appliances from their computer.
The new OS sounds cool, and the companies developing it are respectful and would no doubt produce a quality product, but there is much more information needed besides the media-PR blurb given in that article. I get the sense that this paper didn't have anything else to write about so it made something up, because throughout the article not one department or source is mentioned besides "industry sources". I would also think the three huge companies mentioned -- IBM, Toshiba, and Sony wouldn't work together anyway. Each one would be more than capable of developing and operating system on their own, and IMO there would be too much departmental overlay to justify cooperation with two other huge firms.
Work on the OS project has not yet begun, but the three companies have begun joint development of next-generation semiconductors that will be hundreds of times faster than current integrated chips and feature networking functions.
Yeah, and the're also working on a way to colonize Mars, too.
Isn't this what the modern P2P networks are? Already on FastTrack Morpheus/KaZaA and Gnutella you can get several of the top 10 movies in DivX format, plus a slew of shows like Star Trek, Sceinfield, even Survivor reruns. I see it as network bandwidth to users increases and processors are able to zip through DivX encoding, this will be the one online, searchable audio (audio is already there) and video technology.
Don't bother with creating a new network, it's already there and is community supported -- both in infrastructure and in media.
Of The story indicated that UKbetting.com would be off-limits to anyone from the United States, but I was just able to access it successfully...
Of course the site allows you to access it! It's when you try to open an account it displays the checking page and reports you can't access the site if you have a US-based hostname. I assume they're doing some kind of ARPANET hostname lookup, getting the details of the IP, including the address and only allowing UK-based addresses.
This is bad news for hosting companies operating in the UK but having address and contact details based in the US or some other country.
Of course, that doesn't mean you can't get around it by something like a UK-based proxy, a NAT, IP Tunneling, or a virtural LAN. In fact, using Google.co.uk (based in UK or with.co.uk extension?), the cache of the application page is fully viewable here in the US of A.
Based on this, I assume you could buy a UK domain name and surf the net from that host and get in.
So you're right anyway -- doesn't necessarily work as promised.
You can really spot the ignorance in this marketoid luddite by his following statement:
"Whoever released the code for the Internet probably didn't understand what they were doing," he says.
People like him need to be taken out and shot. Literally. We just don't need them. True, most of us do live in a capitalist society where this behavoir is encouraged. However, one has to ask the question of would the Internet and modern technology be as advanced if only the highest bidders were allowed in?
In fact, I would seem to think less money would have been made if the Internet was a strictly closed-protocol network with strict licensing and the usual assortment of silly patents. It is the open nature of universal connectivity, of worldwide audience that made the Internet successful, and later, attractive to commercial investors. Had it been a private venture requiring royalties to be paid, it wouldn't grown on the International scene and would have been underdeveloped nationally, and as a result there would be no commercial interest. The great communications system of today wouldn't exist because of greed and short term profits.
And it would all be because of people like Mr. Hoskins, people like him looking to make a quick buck instead of trying to advance humanity, unite countries, and create a system of International free speech. And he is saying this after the fact these great benefits have been acheived. He would have wanted it the other way -- to hell with humanity; he wishes he could have had that new Lexus!
They say money is the root of all evil, and I am inclined to agree. It's true, we need money to live, but when an organization gets so much money it starts to do stupid things. One example is a modern insurance-carying hospital. Walk into most of these monsters and you'll be adorned with vault ceilings and abstract art. How is that advancing health care? Is a $250,000 sculpture some kind of lab device? The same is true for Universities -- get enough money and you start seeing more offices like the that of the "Office of Technology Licensing", instead of innovation or new technology departments. In fact, I would bet there is a direct inverse relationship between how much money a University reals in and the percentage of said money actually going to academics.
This article, if nothing more, is a truly sobering realization of how things have changed. If you think about it, things like this didn't happen 20 years ago and most people (even geeks) didn't know what prior art from modern. It's unfortunate evolution has applied itself to the lawyers -- I'd rather see them no farther progressed than a lifeless blob of tissue.
Is the world really getting more self-serving and less willing to do something for the good of everyone or is this simply how things have always been? Personally, I would think helping the world would be a much better gift than any financial quantity. And, as I said about the creation of the Internet -- what goes around comes around. I bet those same Universities which released the TCP/IP specification to public domain gained quite a few financial reapings later down the line as the Internet grew in power.
All I can say is everyone should find a good balance between profit and helping advancement of your art. Too much one way and you can't pay for the heat, too much the other way and everything stays closed and progress is slow -- eventually leading toward loss of profit and eventually meltdown in that field.
I'm all for lawyers and the legal system when you need 'em, but do we really need people whose sole purpose is to find new ways to restrict something and make quick cash? Why can't these people see the big picture and long term effects rather than how much they can make off the new technology license?
Isn't the purpose of technology to apply general knowledge and science to solve modern-day problems?
As for 670nM the hologram won't be as bright as if you would have used 635nM, the higher you go in the spectrum the less sensible it is to the human eye. Or did you test something that contradict this as well?:)
Actually if you soak the plate in some post-processor (depends on plate type/manufacture), it will shrink the plate, shrinking the interference fringes and thus lowering the wavelength. This still doesn't get rid of the sensitivity problem (most holographic film is more sensitive to 632.8 nm, the wavelength of a HeNe laser, than higher red wavelengths but it's still perportional), but using this method it is possible to create green and even blue colored holograms by shrinking the plate after exposure with a higher wavelength laser. Some of the green 550 nm holograms I've done are truly stunning in their brightness. If you think of a hologram more as fancy diffraction grating than a picture you can envision some really cool stuff. Try taking a transmission hologram of a lens and then viewing it -- you'll find you have created a holographic optical element -- a diffractive reproduction of a glass/plastic lens which bends light by changes in it's speed, and transformed it into something which bends light via diffractive effects and interference.
What's really cool is taking a hologram of a telescope or other optical arrangement and then when you look through the lens of the holographic telescope it actually works!
I would be interested in any programs with that name prior to MS. I have studied 70's and 80's computer history (hey, I wasn't born in the 70's, OK?)...what windows???
I'd like to make a few comments on your post as one who has been in this field for over five years.
First, TEM00 has very little to do with coherence properties. It's a type of resonant mode and has more to do with polarization than anything else. A TEM00 laser is not required to make holograms, nor is a polarized laser. In fact, ruby lasers which are not TEM00 and Argons who often mode jump left and right are used very often for holography.HeNe's are naturally coherent due to the spectral output characteristics of Neon, which doesn't change wavelength very well based on temperature or power flux. Diodes, on the other hand, have rated shift in wavelength with temperature and/or power. However, newer power supplies automatically sense changes via a feedback loop photodiode and adjust power characteristics accordingly. A good diode with a digital PSU will give you 12+ feet in workable coherence. Add a themoelectric cooler to stabilize the temperature and you can increase it even more. That being said, I doubt anyone has any use with 12 feet of coherence or more. A polarized HeNe from the manufacture Coherent, for example, has several 100's of yards coherence. But who needs that much, seriously? For doing simple objects, a few feet is plenty.
Remember, the goal is trying to record the interference patterns of two (or more) beams on a film plate. Light only interferes well with like-wavelengths, so when your diode shifts in the middle of a 40 second exposure, it will degrade the pattern and thus the diffraction efficiency (if a transmission hologram) of the hologram, and thus the brightness -- the rest of the light is loss to scattering. However, with a 50 mW diode you can easily have sub-second exposure times with a 3x4" plate, which should produce a hologram with equal quality as one produced by a HeNe.
A good test to find out the coherence length of your diode is the classical Michelson Interferometer. It produces controllable interference via a path length delta in one of the optical arms. As long as you can obtain an interference pattern at delta, that is your coherence length. I tested a 5 mW diode from Radio Shack and got around 3 feet of coherence.
There are many advantages to using laser diodes for holography over the conventional HeNe. First, they're cheap -- much more so in the price/power ratio than a new or surplus HeNe. You can get a complete 50 mW 650 nm laser diode system for around $500. That's plenty of power for doing 8x10's with exposure times in the seconds. Diodes are also small and do not involve high voltages associated with the gas discharge tube-type supplies HeNe's employ. Even a used 20 mW HeNe on eBay (which is very rare) will run you about $700 to over $1k. A new one could cost several thousand. Better to get a multiline argon and do color ~
I should also point out that you can obtain very high power diodes at around 670 nm -- these diodes produce 1W or more of power and cost only a few hundred. The beam requires a fair amount of conditioning because the emitter is rectangular and thus emmits a beam high in divergence, but an anamorphic prism pair will give you a nice round beam with 1.2 mRad of divergence for miles.
Another thing to think about it that the HeNe, as a technology, has been around since the late 1960's. It's old and there is no more R&D going on with gas lasers. Diodes, on the other hand, continue to be a very hot materials and science research area. Diodes are getting more stable, smaller, more efficient, and the wavelengths keep going doing (Nichia makes 400 nm diodes now). You can also purchase a diode pumped solid state (DPSS) system to frequency double an IR diode to create useable green output. HeNe's see no more devlopment in these areas and are being replaced by diodes. This actually decreases demand and thus increases price...do the math!!
Anyway, hope this helps someone. I have been using a TE cooled 500 mW Philips diode with digital PSU built from a PIC, with dual anamorphic filtering. With this setup I am able to create very bright holograms with several feet coherence length...
At long last -- yes, it is true you can make holograms with a laser pointer!
Our digital provider in Columbus, Ohio offers on demand digital cable which includes over 300 movies (usually newer ones), and they are getting good about adding them as they come out.
But what I really like is the ability to stream individual shows. I can watch whatever episode of Dragon Ball Z or Star Trek I want for a fee, that is.
What I would really like would be an unlimited package. I would easily pay $100 a month for unlimited on demand of a large database of movies/TV shows.
However, as others have pointed out this service is not new. It started when cable companies switched over to MPEG2 using UBR switches a few years ago. With 1000 slots each with a DVD-quality MPEG2 channel and three or four NTSC quality channels each, it just made sense to offer it on demand. I do notice that in busier sections of the city with more users of the on-demand service frames are actually dropped and MPEG artifacting can happen every 15 minutes or so. I've only seen it freeze once, with a "Service Busy" screen popping up. This is pretty amazing considering all the decoding is being done on the set-top or sometimes in the local UBR (which in some setups can do several streams per second). In fact, the digital set-top CPE even have an integrated webTV for browsing web sites, although I'm not sure if they use the same up/down frequencies as a regular cable modem, nor am I sure if on demand TV shares the cable modem spectrum (probably not). The main point is when's the last time you could actually watch a realtime video stream on your PC over the Internet at NTSC+ resolution? What these companies have done is build a fast, private network from the ground up free from abuse and the bandwidth waste the Internet see's today. It's the same as streaming DVD over your gigabit ethernet, only it's city-wide.
As for a revolution in TV viewing -- I don't think so. I still often prefer to watch scheduled programming because, well, I just like knowing other people are watching what I'm seeing at the same time and it creates a sort of audience or community feeling. Sure, I do use the TV on demand feature sometimes but because of the cost (around $3.50 a pop) I sometimes find myself waiting until the show is actually aired. Don't know how the TV distributor is paid per-the-view, that would be interesting also.
In times like these I often find it helpful to directly reverse the situation to eliminate any bias:
For example, what if Microsoft created and was marketing a product called Minux, which was intended to provide the same functionality as Linux and used unique only to Linux technical and architectural concepts?
Would this not be infringement? Microsoft is dead-on here, and although the Windows trademark is ambigious, you all should remember that it was granted in the first place because the name 'Windows' is in fact unique to the computer industry (whereas a company selling Windows it wouldn't be). When you think of Windows and a computer, you always think of Microsoft.
The real question remains -- is this an attempt to gain the needed press via the Microsoft hypemobile or does the former MP3.com CEO really think he has a chance of winning ala Napster? His remark in the article regarding Microsoft's guilt didn't seem to bright and didn't address the real technical question of is it in fact infringement.
We'll have to see on this one, although I do think this will be good to get Linux in the public eye again and possibly get some major userbases/corporations to look seriously at Linux as a viable alternative.
Well I have to say I don't agree with this article. By it's own admissions, a desktop is a limiting space. It is true that for novice users a desktop metaphor is a comforting feeling and most do not leave it, but navigating the complex structure of an entire computer via desktops would be silly. It does make some sense to organize a hard-disk, but this is what the filesystem is for. If I read the article correctly, it implies scraping the tradional rooted filesystem in place of one in which is organized into several main points of interaction via a desktop metaphor.
We would then have a different desktop for different parts of the system -- e.g. an operating system desktop which would expose internal controls, configuration files, utility programs and other settings, several program desktops, etc.
In pratice it sounds good but I don't think anyone will take to it very well or it will be that different. In fact, most desktops are just glorified directories anyway that are always open and at the lowest level. So what's the point of difference, because I fail to see one.
I'm a network engineer for a cable provider in Columbus, Ohio. What we do is contract backbone service out to bandwidth companies in the area. When we switch networks what we do is issue a DHCP update to all of our nodes, and turn the DHCP server off before it has time to respond with a new IP address on the old network. We then send a TFTP configuration to the modem to turn the network control access object off, switch the HFC IP address, turn it back on, and by this time the DHCP server on the new network responds with the new IP address.
The process is completly transparent and the only hit is to programs which keep a constant port open (e.g. file sharing programs), will suddenly loose a connection for receiving (sinc they have a new IP). However, they usually time out and reconnect.
It also has the added advantage of flushing out priate modems on the network, since customers who use a modem with it's TFTP disabled or it's control locked to on don't receive the new info for the new network and are stuck on an old, dead network.
We have switched networks over four times with only a few support calls. It could have been a big deal, requiring customer talk-throughs but we do it transparently.
So what' wrong with two headends being responsible for one modem? The way I see it is this is bad for Excite, because a modem would be using a UBR on the Excite network while it is no longer a paying member of that network. This means Excite will be supporting a modem it just switched.
But for the customer it won't be that bad. When the Excite UBR goes dark, the other UBR on the network they are paying for responds and they go along their way...
Unless I'm missing something, Excite is only shooting thereself in the foot by mulling around with deleting serial numbers from their own HFC.
The framerate is not in fact fixed on any system. Consoles run programs just like any other computer system, and those programs can do whatever they want with their processor time. They can spend all their time pushing scene detail to the GPU (even through only 30 fps makes the cut), doing physics calculations, etc. I'm sure any intelligent game programmer won't try to push for 100 fps on a 29.97 NTSC output, but you never know and it's still a possibility.
You also neglected to mention that the PC framerates of 172 are also not viewable because there aren't many people running their monitors with a VSYNC of 180 Hz (or similar, not that many monitors support refresh rates this high). So it's just wasted, which just reaffirms the fact the crazy watercooling overclockin' gamers are really crazy...
Slashdot Mirror
Then we would have lots of geeky OSS programmers trying to 'improve' on it...
It doesn't look pretty.
I've known about this so-called exploit for months. I often use it to quickly check to see if a specific user has any files shared, and what files they are. Basically, its the same as a Bearshare or Limeware HTTP server listing shared files and providing links to donwload.
This comes from the fact that the FastTrack protocol transfers and requests files via the HTTP protocol, thus any HTTP speaking application (such as a web browser) should be able to do the same as a Morpheus client, which is really only a fancy web browser.
In fact, the OpenFTP has a program which does in fact scan IP address ranges from the 1214 port number, indexes the files, and then provides these for searching on the OpenFT network. They even have a memory-dump function which dumps the entire memory block of the Linux KazAa client kza (no longer available), and searches for IP addresses to index.
I would question the so-called 'group' the BBC contacted. It's either an ultra-liberal doomsday security group like that of Steve Gibson or is a very good (?) attempt by the RIAA to scare people off the FT network, which now has peaked at over 700,000 connected nodes.
But as for a security threat, there is no concern. The only files accessible on the internal web server are those which have been specifically selected to be shared, and a dynamic wwwroot is then generated based on selected directories (usually just My Shared Files).
As others have mentioned, the availability of the fuel for these fuel cells is what is going to kill or break it. I wouldn't much mind filling up my laptop while I pump my gas, as long as it only costs me 33 cents extra. You just know if this technology takes off the methanol industry will recognize the demand and increase their bulk prices to be more expensive in smaller quantities. That's how it was with gas and oil when the car became mainstream.
It's going to be a tough haul convincing consumers, especially because most don't see that they *are* acutally paying something when they plug in their laptop or cellphone to charge. You also can't beat the distribution of electrical outlets. There may be a fuel cell depot at every gas station and news stand, but I doubt there will be one right beside your bed.
Personally, I'm still holding off on my hydrogen from air bit, or burning oxygen for fuel. We have plenty of "fuel" in the air, why not use it? And what about energy from plain old H2O we've been hearing about? Burn both the Hydrogen and Oxygen and you have no waste.
Ultimatly, we will have to see. For now I would be for a hybrid battery/fuel cell slot system where you can get the instant fill-up when you need it, but still not be left in the dark when the minimart in All Pains, Michigan doesn't cary your fuel cell brand.
IMO, the real reason for cheat detection is not because of some moral reason to stop cheaters, but because of laziness.
What I'm getting at is really, how many professors actually look at the code to a program and not just run it to make sure it does what it's supposed to do? I had a CS teacher once tell everyone to make sure we output to a file so he could run the programs in batches and compare the outputs to what should be the output easily. Then he would run the source through a cheat detector and viola, he's done for the night.
I'm not saying professors are lazy, but programming is a rare example where this kind of detection could proove useful because often times it doesn't matter what the source of a program is, how poor or good it is, just that it does what you want it to do. This may seem like bad engineering, but its a real life fact in CS. English teachers are required to read the papers of their students -- thus they'll know a cheater off bat. But CS professors are not held to the same requirements, or let alone standards.
The problem with computer cheat detection is that there is, currently, no match for human cheat detection. You don't hear of a cheat detection system for English papers, why for CS?
The solution I think will be to have professors that actually go through the source code of each student. A particular case that I know of is a professor that would go through a project and comment on the source line by line, right along with your comments with things like "Good idea, great OOP use." or something like "You might try a linked list like this...". Not only was this invaluable assistance leading to better programmers, it was VERY easy to spot cheaters, because...he actually checked the source.
Why am I saying cheat detection is bad? Well, I'm certainly not a cheater. I know of several people who love CS -- not for actually liking programming, but for rushing through with assignments and turning them over to those who are helplessly lost for a quick profit. I don't like cheat detection because it not only can implicate those who don't cheat, but it allows professors to be lazy. If I was a suit at a university, I would bet on the professor I mentioned earlier who goes through source commenting than one who analyzes outputs and then runs the source through the latest cheatdetect.pl script.
It may be bad popping up ads when you're surfing the web, but what about just whenever. That's what happened on my system.
I, like Chet & Eric of the linked article do support programs having internal ads to support themselves as free software. However, monitoring users behavoirs is another story -- that's your computer and most contracts (as I have heard from a lawyer friend) cannot "sign" that away; for example your landlord cannot include a clause stating he has the right to monitor your mail, who you talk to, etc. and by living in the property he owns, you forfeit those rights, and if you do not agree with them you cannot live there. Well, folks, this is exactly what most of these programs are having you agree to. The fact is, they're illegal contracts. You cannot gather personally identifiable information (it's identifiable because they are able to deliver targeted advertisement thus they must have a system to know who you are) if you signed the rights away or not.
I have accepted that companies do this and there really isn't a way of getting around it (heck, I don't really care what they do with the info, I'm not going to buy something from any ads they use and that'll be my contribution). So I have tolerated these commercial bombardments. That is until something strange happened.
All of a sudden while I would be at my desk in the same room (this is at work mind you), I would notice activity on the monitor. Going over to look at it, I would notice an ad window had mysteriously popped up, when no programs were running and I hadn't been using the computer for hours. In the morning I typically had several windows to close after the nights ad-popping fun.
Thinking it was a web site which some how introduced a popup delay, I dismised it at first. But it got worse. It was impossible to work on a Word document without having an ad popup and steal focus from my document. I also came to the realization when you close a browser window, its process ends and thus a delay javascript wouldn't work.
I finally decided that it must be some program launching these ad windows. Searching the running process list, I noticed an interesting program happily running. Savenow was the culprit. This program was actually popping up windows on my personal desktop, on my computer (yes, I do own it) and collecting web browsing data in the background, even when its associated product wasn't running! Deleting the savenow executable, I was free of the ads yet outraged of how this company violated my privacy and my computer, and also comprimised the security of my employer. What if they could learn something about our project based upon my web browsing habits and sell that to another company?
After that incident, I went in with a resource editor on every single ad-supported program on my computer and removed the ad resources. I also installed ad-blocking software. Still though, I do occassionaly get ads and various brandings. I have since persuaded my boss to let me put my Linux box on the network, but still, how long until we see these ads and tactics on Linux? How long until these ad programs start embedding ads in your paid for software, or interfacing with your printer driver to print a banner ad out on every page?
The point I'm trying to make is I am all for advertising and realize it does support free products quite nicely, but when it invades my privacy and makes me sign illegal contracts, I get angry. Anyone would. And something should be done about it. I don't have the resources, I can only not buy the products they force on me and put a dent in their success rate thus no ads. But someone with the resources and time should go after these bastards.
The problem with SPAM I see is that when I check e-mail on my phone, it costs me money to delete and wade through all those messages.
First of all, it's impossible to acheive any type of ratio on random data. Good quality random data such as that from random.org simply can't be compressed. Period.
Data compression works by finding patterns in seemingly random data. A standard video stream really doesn't contain that much unique information. That's why we can compress it pretty well without loosing too much data. However, random data is 100% unique and you must have, say, 8 bits representing 8 bits because there is no other way to represent it without loosing information.
The claims by this company are impossible. I read their technical description and I'm still trying that around in my head. It doesn't make sense. It's called the rule of limited entropy and no data compression breakthrough can break it. You can't just make data appear out of thin air.
Is it just me, or is this another company looking to swindle over a few VC investors? The only type of program I see here is the lie, buy, and sell high kind -- I don't buy it.
Wouldn't you rather hunt for the latest RPM, and then hunt down the twenty others needed to satisfy it's dependancies? Or how about go the source route and have to download and compile a new version of gcc because said program doesn't compile on 3.0.x versions? Only to realize once you ./ it, it segfaults like crazy?
God, I love Linux!
Note: this is not a troll. It's an actual synopsis of what happened to me YESTERDAY.
Are these predictions for the coming year or a synopsis of 2001?
Guess you can't be wrong in restating the obvious.
Keeping with IBM's tradition of success with their DeskStar line (my 75 gig just failed the other day), I have had three microdrives before finally returning it and purchasing a 320 MB CompactFlash card for $120.
The drive never did actually fail, it only refused to do things like spin up, or would lock up when writing to it. It always seemed to not want to work when I needed it most. And this was for use with a digital camera, handheld, and laptop with CF adapter. I can't imagine using the device for lesiure.
The thing that got me so enraged was the drive would look like it was writing to the disk, then when I would get home from shooting pics or after I copied a huge file there would be only a few random pictures or the filesystem would be corrupt -- not even salvagable.
I'm sure it wasn't my digital camera or any of my other hardware because I tried it in several friends cameras and sure enough it was finicky beyond use. Who knows? Maybe I just got a bad lot -- but I've heard from many others, especially on the digital photography web site that while they would love to use the drive, how can they get it to be reliable? I've never had flash media complain or give me any kind of trouble.
I'd also like to comment on battery usage. Without the MD, I would get about 6-8 hours usage from my iPAQ, however using the drive sparinkly and under normal use that figure drops to around 2-3 hours, 4 tops. Using a CF flash card, I can't even notice a difference (although there probably is one). The microdrive is clearly very demanding of power -- it also heats up *quite* nicely till you can barely hold the device (great for this time of year during the cold though).
Don't even ask about digital cameras. Having to deal with a power-sucking CCD is enough, and when you bring the MD into the picture you have a good *two dozen* shots before the dreaded battery warning. And this is on 1800 mAH NiMH batteries. What's the point in being able to store 700 pictures on one media when you constantly have to switch batteries (assuming you have a few pre-charged sets).
The MD is a great technical feat -- there's no doubt about that. But I would questions its everyday use outside the tradeshow and webzine review for both professionals and lesiure use. I head some of the Delkin MDs are better, but I'm still sure there are some problems. With a 2GB version on the horizon for IBM's model, the microdrive will probably get better. But that begs to ask the real question as to if CF flash media will become cheaper $/MB as the demand is higher and the market is more competitive.
You should note that X10.com is a company, while X-10 is a protocol, which (albeit patented and requiring royalty) other companies sell as well. NEVER buy from that horrid X10.com company -- buy from Home Automation instead.
It's bad what some companies do and then an entire technology gets a bad taste because of it...
What does this new OS provide that we don't already have and are not already capable of doing? You can already watch TV on your computer and view your computer's monitor on your TV. Regular NTSC resolution isn't that high anyway and is easily handled by a computer. You can already store television programs on your computer -- in fact, we even have things like TiVo which are consumer devices just for that purpose.
Also via X-10 hardware we can control just about anything from our PCs -- including air conditioners. The problem isn't availability, it's just that most people don't really need to control their microwave or other hosehold devices/appliances from their computer.
The new OS sounds cool, and the companies developing it are respectful and would no doubt produce a quality product, but there is much more information needed besides the media-PR blurb given in that article. I get the sense that this paper didn't have anything else to write about so it made something up, because throughout the article not one department or source is mentioned besides "industry sources". I would also think the three huge companies mentioned -- IBM, Toshiba, and Sony wouldn't work together anyway. Each one would be more than capable of developing and operating system on their own, and IMO there would be too much departmental overlay to justify cooperation with two other huge firms.
Work on the OS project has not yet begun, but the three companies have begun joint development of next-generation semiconductors that will be hundreds of times faster than current integrated chips and feature networking functions.
Yeah, and the're also working on a way to colonize Mars, too.
Isn't this what the modern P2P networks are? Already on FastTrack Morpheus/KaZaA and Gnutella you can get several of the top 10 movies in DivX format, plus a slew of shows like Star Trek, Sceinfield, even Survivor reruns. I see it as network bandwidth to users increases and processors are able to zip through DivX encoding, this will be the one online, searchable audio (audio is already there) and video technology.
Don't bother with creating a new network, it's already there and is community supported -- both in infrastructure and in media.
I knew that cron job would get some attention!
Of The story indicated that UKbetting.com would be off-limits to anyone from the United States, but I was just able to access it successfully...
.co.uk extension?), the cache of the application page is fully viewable here in the US of A.
Of course the site allows you to access it! It's when you try to open an account it displays the checking page and reports you can't access the site if you have a US-based hostname. I assume they're doing some kind of ARPANET hostname lookup, getting the details of the IP, including the address and only allowing UK-based addresses.
This is bad news for hosting companies operating in the UK but having address and contact details based in the US or some other country.
Of course, that doesn't mean you can't get around it by something like a UK-based proxy, a NAT, IP Tunneling, or a virtural LAN. In fact, using Google.co.uk (based in UK or with
Based on this, I assume you could buy a UK domain name and surf the net from that host and get in.
So you're right anyway -- doesn't necessarily work as promised.
You can really spot the ignorance in this marketoid luddite by his following statement:
"Whoever released the code for the Internet probably didn't understand what they were doing," he says.
People like him need to be taken out and shot. Literally. We just don't need them. True, most of us do live in a capitalist society where this behavoir is encouraged. However, one has to ask the question of would the Internet and modern technology be as advanced if only the highest bidders were allowed in?
In fact, I would seem to think less money would have been made if the Internet was a strictly closed-protocol network with strict licensing and the usual assortment of silly patents. It is the open nature of universal connectivity, of worldwide audience that made the Internet successful, and later, attractive to commercial investors. Had it been a private venture requiring royalties to be paid, it wouldn't grown on the International scene and would have been underdeveloped nationally, and as a result there would be no commercial interest. The great communications system of today wouldn't exist because of greed and short term profits.
And it would all be because of people like Mr. Hoskins, people like him looking to make a quick buck instead of trying to advance humanity, unite countries, and create a system of International free speech. And he is saying this after the fact these great benefits have been acheived. He would have wanted it the other way -- to hell with humanity; he wishes he could have had that new Lexus!
They say money is the root of all evil, and I am inclined to agree. It's true, we need money to live, but when an organization gets so much money it starts to do stupid things. One example is a modern insurance-carying hospital. Walk into most of these monsters and you'll be adorned with vault ceilings and abstract art. How is that advancing health care? Is a $250,000 sculpture some kind of lab device? The same is true for Universities -- get enough money and you start seeing more offices like the that of the "Office of Technology Licensing", instead of innovation or new technology departments. In fact, I would bet there is a direct inverse relationship between how much money a University reals in and the percentage of said money actually going to academics.
This article, if nothing more, is a truly sobering realization of how things have changed. If you think about it, things like this didn't happen 20 years ago and most people (even geeks) didn't know what prior art from modern. It's unfortunate evolution has applied itself to the lawyers -- I'd rather see them no farther progressed than a lifeless blob of tissue.
Is the world really getting more self-serving and less willing to do something for the good of everyone or is this simply how things have always been? Personally, I would think helping the world would be a much better gift than any financial quantity. And, as I said about the creation of the Internet -- what goes around comes around. I bet those same Universities which released the TCP/IP specification to public domain gained quite a few financial reapings later down the line as the Internet grew in power.
All I can say is everyone should find a good balance between profit and helping advancement of your art. Too much one way and you can't pay for the heat, too much the other way and everything stays closed and progress is slow -- eventually leading toward loss of profit and eventually meltdown in that field.
I'm all for lawyers and the legal system when you need 'em, but do we really need people whose sole purpose is to find new ways to restrict something and make quick cash? Why can't these people see the big picture and long term effects rather than how much they can make off the new technology license?
Isn't the purpose of technology to apply general knowledge and science to solve modern-day problems?
As for 670nM the hologram won't be as bright as if you would have used 635nM, the higher you go in the spectrum the less sensible it is to the human eye. Or did you test something that contradict this as well? :)
Actually if you soak the plate in some post-processor (depends on plate type/manufacture), it will shrink the plate, shrinking the interference fringes and thus lowering the wavelength. This still doesn't get rid of the sensitivity problem (most holographic film is more sensitive to 632.8 nm, the wavelength of a HeNe laser, than higher red wavelengths but it's still perportional), but using this method it is possible to create green and even blue colored holograms by shrinking the plate after exposure with a higher wavelength laser. Some of the green 550 nm holograms I've done are truly stunning in their brightness. If you think of a hologram more as fancy diffraction grating than a picture you can envision some really cool stuff. Try taking a transmission hologram of a lens and then viewing it -- you'll find you have created a holographic optical element -- a diffractive reproduction of a glass/plastic lens which bends light by changes in it's speed, and transformed it into something which bends light via diffractive effects and interference.
What's really cool is taking a hologram of a telescope or other optical arrangement and then when you look through the lens of the holographic telescope it actually works!
Optical science is always so fascinating.
I would be interested in any programs with that name prior to MS. I have studied 70's and 80's computer history (hey, I wasn't born in the 70's, OK?)...what windows???
I'd like to make a few comments on your post as one who has been in this field for over five years.
First, TEM00 has very little to do with coherence properties. It's a type of resonant mode and has more to do with polarization than anything else. A TEM00 laser is not required to make holograms, nor is a polarized laser. In fact, ruby lasers which are not TEM00 and Argons who often mode jump left and right are used very often for holography.HeNe's are naturally coherent due to the spectral output characteristics of Neon, which doesn't change wavelength very well based on temperature or power flux. Diodes, on the other hand, have rated shift in wavelength with temperature and/or power. However, newer power supplies automatically sense changes via a feedback loop photodiode and adjust power characteristics accordingly. A good diode with a digital PSU will give you 12+ feet in workable coherence. Add a themoelectric cooler to stabilize the temperature and you can increase it even more. That being said, I doubt anyone has any use with 12 feet of coherence or more. A polarized HeNe from the manufacture Coherent, for example, has several 100's of yards coherence. But who needs that much, seriously? For doing simple objects, a few feet is plenty.
Remember, the goal is trying to record the interference patterns of two (or more) beams on a film plate. Light only interferes well with like-wavelengths, so when your diode shifts in the middle of a 40 second exposure, it will degrade the pattern and thus the diffraction efficiency (if a transmission hologram) of the hologram, and thus the brightness -- the rest of the light is loss to scattering. However, with a 50 mW diode you can easily have sub-second exposure times with a 3x4" plate, which should produce a hologram with equal quality as one produced by a HeNe.
A good test to find out the coherence length of your diode is the classical Michelson Interferometer. It produces controllable interference via a path length delta in one of the optical arms. As long as you can obtain an interference pattern at delta, that is your coherence length. I tested a 5 mW diode from Radio Shack and got around 3 feet of coherence.
There are many advantages to using laser diodes for holography over the conventional HeNe. First, they're cheap -- much more so in the price/power ratio than a new or surplus HeNe. You can get a complete 50 mW 650 nm laser diode system for around $500. That's plenty of power for doing 8x10's with exposure times in the seconds. Diodes are also small and do not involve high voltages associated with the gas discharge tube-type supplies HeNe's employ. Even a used 20 mW HeNe on eBay (which is very rare) will run you about $700 to over $1k. A new one could cost several thousand. Better to get a multiline argon and do color ~
I should also point out that you can obtain very high power diodes at around 670 nm -- these diodes produce 1W or more of power and cost only a few hundred. The beam requires a fair amount of conditioning because the emitter is rectangular and thus emmits a beam high in divergence, but an anamorphic prism pair will give you a nice round beam with 1.2 mRad of divergence for miles.
Another thing to think about it that the HeNe, as a technology, has been around since the late 1960's. It's old and there is no more R&D going on with gas lasers. Diodes, on the other hand, continue to be a very hot materials and science research area. Diodes are getting more stable, smaller, more efficient, and the wavelengths keep going doing (Nichia makes 400 nm diodes now). You can also purchase a diode pumped solid state (DPSS) system to frequency double an IR diode to create useable green output. HeNe's see no more devlopment in these areas and are being replaced by diodes. This actually decreases demand and thus increases price...do the math!!
Anyway, hope this helps someone. I have been using a TE cooled 500 mW Philips diode with digital PSU built from a PIC, with dual anamorphic filtering. With this setup I am able to create very bright holograms with several feet coherence length...
At long last -- yes, it is true you can make holograms with a laser pointer!
Our digital provider in Columbus, Ohio offers on demand digital cable which includes over 300 movies (usually newer ones), and they are getting good about adding them as they come out.
But what I really like is the ability to stream individual shows. I can watch whatever episode of Dragon Ball Z or Star Trek I want for a fee, that is.
What I would really like would be an unlimited package. I would easily pay $100 a month for unlimited on demand of a large database of movies/TV shows.
However, as others have pointed out this service is not new. It started when cable companies switched over to MPEG2 using UBR switches a few years ago. With 1000 slots each with a DVD-quality MPEG2 channel and three or four NTSC quality channels each, it just made sense to offer it on demand. I do notice that in busier sections of the city with more users of the on-demand service frames are actually dropped and MPEG artifacting can happen every 15 minutes or so. I've only seen it freeze once, with a "Service Busy" screen popping up. This is pretty amazing considering all the decoding is being done on the set-top or sometimes in the local UBR (which in some setups can do several streams per second). In fact, the digital set-top CPE even have an integrated webTV for browsing web sites, although I'm not sure if they use the same up/down frequencies as a regular cable modem, nor am I sure if on demand TV shares the cable modem spectrum (probably not). The main point is when's the last time you could actually watch a realtime video stream on your PC over the Internet at NTSC+ resolution? What these companies have done is build a fast, private network from the ground up free from abuse and the bandwidth waste the Internet see's today. It's the same as streaming DVD over your gigabit ethernet, only it's city-wide.
As for a revolution in TV viewing -- I don't think so. I still often prefer to watch scheduled programming because, well, I just like knowing other people are watching what I'm seeing at the same time and it creates a sort of audience or community feeling. Sure, I do use the TV on demand feature sometimes but because of the cost (around $3.50 a pop) I sometimes find myself waiting until the show is actually aired. Don't know how the TV distributor is paid per-the-view, that would be interesting also.
In times like these I often find it helpful to directly reverse the situation to eliminate any bias:
For example, what if Microsoft created and was marketing a product called Minux, which was intended to provide the same functionality as Linux and used unique only to Linux technical and architectural concepts?
Would this not be infringement? Microsoft is dead-on here, and although the Windows trademark is ambigious, you all should remember that it was granted in the first place because the name 'Windows' is in fact unique to the computer industry (whereas a company selling Windows it wouldn't be). When you think of Windows and a computer, you always think of Microsoft.
The real question remains -- is this an attempt to gain the needed press via the Microsoft hypemobile or does the former MP3.com CEO really think he has a chance of winning ala Napster? His remark in the article regarding Microsoft's guilt didn't seem to bright and didn't address the real technical question of is it in fact infringement.
We'll have to see on this one, although I do think this will be good to get Linux in the public eye again and possibly get some major userbases/corporations to look seriously at Linux as a viable alternative.
Well I have to say I don't agree with this article. By it's own admissions, a desktop is a limiting space. It is true that for novice users a desktop metaphor is a comforting feeling and most do not leave it, but navigating the complex structure of an entire computer via desktops would be silly. It does make some sense to organize a hard-disk, but this is what the filesystem is for. If I read the article correctly, it implies scraping the tradional rooted filesystem in place of one in which is organized into several main points of interaction via a desktop metaphor.
We would then have a different desktop for different parts of the system -- e.g. an operating system desktop which would expose internal controls, configuration files, utility programs and other settings, several program desktops, etc.
In pratice it sounds good but I don't think anyone will take to it very well or it will be that different. In fact, most desktops are just glorified directories anyway that are always open and at the lowest level. So what's the point of difference, because I fail to see one.
I'm a network engineer for a cable provider in Columbus, Ohio. What we do is contract backbone service out to bandwidth companies in the area. When we switch networks what we do is issue a DHCP update to all of our nodes, and turn the DHCP server off before it has time to respond with a new IP address on the old network. We then send a TFTP configuration to the modem to turn the network control access object off, switch the HFC IP address, turn it back on, and by this time the DHCP server on the new network responds with the new IP address.
The process is completly transparent and the only hit is to programs which keep a constant port open (e.g. file sharing programs), will suddenly loose a connection for receiving (sinc they have a new IP). However, they usually time out and reconnect.
It also has the added advantage of flushing out priate modems on the network, since customers who use a modem with it's TFTP disabled or it's control locked to on don't receive the new info for the new network and are stuck on an old, dead network.
We have switched networks over four times with only a few support calls. It could have been a big deal, requiring customer talk-throughs but we do it transparently.
So what' wrong with two headends being responsible for one modem? The way I see it is this is bad for Excite, because a modem would be using a UBR on the Excite network while it is no longer a paying member of that network. This means Excite will be supporting a modem it just switched.
But for the customer it won't be that bad. When the Excite UBR goes dark, the other UBR on the network they are paying for responds and they go along their way...
Unless I'm missing something, Excite is only shooting thereself in the foot by mulling around with deleting serial numbers from their own HFC.
The framerate is not in fact fixed on any system. Consoles run programs just like any other computer system, and those programs can do whatever they want with their processor time. They can spend all their time pushing scene detail to the GPU (even through only 30 fps makes the cut), doing physics calculations, etc. I'm sure any intelligent game programmer won't try to push for 100 fps on a 29.97 NTSC output, but you never know and it's still a possibility.
You also neglected to mention that the PC framerates of 172 are also not viewable because there aren't many people running their monitors with a VSYNC of 180 Hz (or similar, not that many monitors support refresh rates this high). So it's just wasted, which just reaffirms the fact the crazy watercooling overclockin' gamers are really crazy...