When I started using Netflix (early adopter here...been a member for over two and a half years), the plan allowed 4 movies at a time, for twenty bucks a month. They have since changed that policy (six months ago, maybe? I don't remember), and now allow three on hand instead of four; however, I seem to have been "grandfathered" in allowing me to have four movies on hand, and still for twenty bucks, instead of the basic plan's current 3. From my "Membership Terms" page:
Program size, pricing and renewal
Your current program allows you to have up to 4 movies out at a time.
You are currently being charged $19.95 per period.
I mention this not to gloat to new users, but to point out that, unlike so many companies, who say "these terms subject to change without notice," Netflix seems to be of the opinion that I should continue to get what I signed up for, even when they decide to change their program. I wish more companies would do this--Go Netflix!
Also, about two years ago, they did a survey on possibly expanding their service to include video games (probably PlayStation discs, although they might have also been considering cartridges, I don't know). As far as I can tell, that idea didn't go anywhere (I personally said I wouldn't use it, because I don't have any game consoles), but with their popularity growing (substantially, it seems), it might be possible to resurrect it, if enough people ask for it.
(In case you couldn't tell, yes, I am very happy with them, and no, I don't work for them.)
Actually, I was thinking about an idea like this just a few weeks ago. Most government documents are distributed electronically as PDF files (in addition to physical distribution). The latest version of Acrobat includes JavaScript functionality (IIRC), and I know it has some basic math functionality. It seems to me that tax forms would be prime candidates for inclusion of formulae and functions; if not the full IRS 1040A, then at least the 1040 EZ, and perhaps some of the other simpler schedules. Such a system could aid everybody--taxpayers and the IRS, who would not need to spend so much time checking for errors (I know they do it, last year they caught an error on my taxes that resulted in a $200+ refund).
Actually, I wish they would make more of their forms a little bit more functional. All of the forms I've seen appear to be simply scans of the paper copies. Acrobat provides for the ability to create fields, which can be filled out on the form, so that it may be printed out complete, instead of having to print it out, then put it in a typewriter and fill it out. For example, I work for the aviation department of a major university. FAA Form 8710 is the application for a pilot certificate. That form is distributed electronically, in PDF form; it can be downloaded and printed out, but only in the blank form. Several months ago, I created for our use a copy of that form with proper fields, so that the form may be filled out before printing, then printed out complete. This has saved our secretary significant effort--she no longer has to worry about the typewriter, lining things up, etc. I estimate that, over the course of the past six months, and three hundred or so applications, she has probably saved a dozen or more hours of unnecessary work; I "finished" the PDF in approximately six hours; that may seem high, but there are approximately 150 fields on that form, of various types, and it was my first time using Acrobat. Somebody competent could probably have done it in an hour. Also remember that the government has a mandate to reduce the onerous burden of such paperwork: the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.
Anyhow, it seems to me that most of the government forms distributed as PDF's are not even remotely taking advantage of the capabilities of the Portable Document Format, and that, on tax forms in particular, the government is falling behind the power curve in complying with the Paperwork Reduction Act, as well as good form. Just a suggestion, guys.
Now it's really going to be a bitch to use your laptop on an airplane...
"Did you pack your own bags?"
"Has anybody asked you to carry anything onboard the airplane?"
"Is that laptop running an Intel Pentium95 with ActiveDeath technology?"
Actually, Mozart was quite thoroughly compensated for his work. The great musicians of the time were usually signed by a benefactor, generally a Lord/King/Noble of some sort, then kept on commission for producing works of art. I've forgotten who was Mozart's benefactor, but he most certainly did work for profit. This was true not just in music, but in many fields--Machiavelli, for example, was at one point patronized by the Medici family.
As to Britney, I don't think she has been helped so much by copyright as she has by a huge marketing arm and the mindless sheep^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H American public, most notably the teenage male market (not to pick on the guys, see also: N*SYNC, et al.).
In any event, allowing the artist the opportunity to make money from his art seems only right--he is creating something, the consuming public is availing itselvf of his work, why shouldn't he have that opportunity? If you choose to create and distribute for free, that's your choice--you're welcome to it (please don't come to me for support vis-a-vis welfare, however); if somebody else decides that they want to be paid for their work, why should they be prevented from doing so?
Ironically, the story mentions another bit of government suppression of information:
In the past, it has taken a tragedy to buck the trend toward more and greater public access. That's what happened in California in 1989 after actress Rebecca Schaeffer was shot to death at her Los Angeles home by an obsessed fan who used publicly available motor vehicle records to find out where she lived. The state quickly cut off public access to such records.
So the same government that has been invading our privacy and publishing the data now says that "some things shouldn't be made public." The same government that says we shouldn't be allowed to hide things that might be used against us has decided to hide things that might be used against us. I wonder if this new-found interest in information security will also be applied to our personal information. (Now taking bets.)
The problem is, company profiteering notwithstanding, they're making it obvious that's all they're interested in. "Oh look! The gaming industry has lots of money! We can get some of that!"
There's a term for this sort of behavior. You might want to write this down for future reference, so I'll wait for you to get a pencil. Ready? Good. The term is:
capitalism
Microsoft is expanding into a new market to try to increase profits? Say it ain't so! What, exactly, do you think is the purpose of a company? I realize that we're dealing with Microsoft, and therefore required to hate them, but seriously--companies exist to make money. You want to see expansion into a new market? Look at Sony--I have a 25 year old Sony TV. That's long before the PlayStation was a gleam in some engineer's eye. At some point after my TV was made, Sony decided to get into the game console market. Have you noticed that they now have a music division, and movie division (Sony Pictures Studios), and several other divisions not related to their previous business of building non-interactive entertainment hardware (stereos, TV's, etc.)?
If Microsoft wants to diverisfy its business, let them. If you think about it for a bit, you'll realize that it's almost certain to be a good thing. Look at the options:
Xbox fails. Millions in R&D wasted. Millions more in hype wasted. MS spends big bucks, loses big--granted, a very small percentage of their total company value, but hey, a buck's a buck. Also, that R&D is useful to Sony, who will see what failed, and not make the same mistake.
Xbox succeeds:
Succeeds because it is a superior system. Market buys it in spades, other companies see it, get a kick in the pants to develop the next generation system to compete, building on the successes of the Xbox. Consumer wins. Besides, who wouldn't like to see MS succeed on merit for a change, instead of bludgeoning power? Surely we're not so bitter and cynical that we would deny them the chance to build something decent?
Succeeds because of hype. Market buys a few, decides that it was OK, but nothing groundbreaking. Spurs research into what would be groundbreaking; Sony, et al. look at the demographics and features, figure out what would improve it. MS becomes, in effect, Sony's R&D department, but funded by MS. (Think MS and MS-Research-South (better known as Apple Computer).) Sony develops new box with improvements.
In any event, the introduction of a new system will create competition, driving down prices and spurring innovation. End result: consumer wins. Leave the Xbox alone, and let the market decide.
Glad somebody else has noticed this. I have an 802.11b network at home, and another at work; I use them to keep my (and my roommates') laptop(s) on the network without having to drag 100+ feet of Cat5 around the place. Do I feel limited by using "only" 11Mbps? Hell, no! I rarely break 1Mbps--on any network. I used to use a 100Mbps wired network, with a decent NIC in my laptop (3Com hardware NIC, not a WinNIC), a decent 100MBps switch, and still rarely broke 1Mbps, even with my desktop machines running closer to 50 Mbps. Why? In short, laptops suck. Seriously--when you're looking for performance, you don't look at laptops. The hard drives are much slower than anything in a desktop, the bus speeds are slower (my laptop has a 66MHz FSB; my desktop has a 133, with DDR RAM); everything is slower and scaled back. 11Mbps is no limit to a laptop, in my experience. It would be a limit to a desktop terminal connected to the WLAN, but most people/companies don't use wireless for desktops.
Granted, we could probably saturate the WLAN if we had twenty or so people all trying to pull large files, but that condition has its own flaws: 1) how often does the situation occur--even in a meeting, with 30 people attending, how many of them are trying to pull big files at a given time (usually none...), and 2) how many clients can an access point actually handle? Most of the ones with which I'm familiar (consumer equipment, admittedly) get flaky around 20-30 people; any more, and you need another AP--add another AP, and you effectively double the bandwitdh, as you're splitting the load across two different AP's, each on a different channels. Also remember than many networks are still only 10 Mbps, because of the high infrastructure cost of upgrading a major network (particularly if recabling is required); on such a network, the bit behind the AP is already the bottleneck, so it's not that big of a deal if the WLAN is only 11Mbps.
In short, yeah, it's neat, it's cool, but it's not that big of a deal, as long as laptops don't get a major bus upgrade. A chain is only as strong as it's weakest link.
Methinks it has already started...Friday night, I was flying a Cessna 152 from Oklahoma City, OK to Indianapolis, IN. I saw several meteors, including a couple of strange ones--one was greenish in color, had a strobe-ish sort of effect, and appeared to be at about 20,000 feet; another was normal white, but again, looked fairly low. I was already talking to Center, and asked them about it, thinking maybe the Air Force was doing some sort of exercise, but they confirmed that there were no other aircraft in the area. There's some cool stuff up there, and even at 5,500 feet, you can see a whole lot more than you can on the ground. I will never forget some of the ones I saw last Friday.
The two janitors were highly annoying. They reminded me of characters from another movie/show that I cannot think of right now. They should have been dropped.
The two janitors were highly annoying. They reminded me of my cow-orkers from my last job. They (my cow-orkers) should have been dropped; the characters were perfect.
And I believe I have seen the impossible...this review appears to have been written by Cmdr. Taco, but I didn't see a single spelling mistake. Who's the ghostwriter?
Certainly, this is a victory for the open source crowd. The idea that source code is speech is so natural to us as to be common sense. Having that view upheld by the court is indeed a triumph of law.
However, I'm afraid I have to put a damper on the fun. The court ruled that source code is speech; compiled executables received no such protection. As such, posession of the DeCSS source code is legal, but use or posession of binaries, or even compilation of source (which would produce a binary) is not legal. "You can have it, but you can't use it."
As a practical matter (WARNING! I am not a lawyer. This is not legal advice! If you try this don't say I told you it was OK! If ever there was a time for the BLINK tag, it's this disclaimer...), since you can posess the source code, there is nothing to realistically stop you from using the binaries. In theory, when the system works right, you cannot be searched without a warrant, which requires probable cause to obtain. If you give the feds probable cause, you deserve what you get, but if you keep your mouth shut and use the software quitely in your home, nobody should be able to get a warrant, and you should not be subject to prosecution (under the rule of "it's only illegal if you get caught"). This would also rule out binary distribution--draws attention to yourself. (Another BLINK disclaimer: I am not advocating breaking any law. I am merely offering my uninformed interpretation of the legal system. ) The DMCA has not been overturned here, it has just been found not to apply to source code. And for those who are thinking what I'm thinking, interpreted languages aren't a back door. You may be able to posess the Perl version of DeCSS, which is executed from source (for all practical purposes), but execution would be circumvention, and the DMCA says "no" to that.
Good points from the case:
"The fact that a medium of expression has a functional capacity should not preclude constitutional protection."
"Because computer source code is an expressive means for the exchange of information and ideas about computer programming, we hold that it is protected by the First Amendment."
Bad points:
"DVDCCA may, of course, bring an action for damages or even injunctive relief against anyone who violates the Act by conduct rather than speech." [emphasis from the original ruling]
"And anyone who infringes a copyright held by DVDCCA or by any DVD content provider may be subject to an action under the Copyright Act."
Brief summary, in my own words: you can have it, but you can't use it.
Seriously, I built a system using the black Lian Li case from ThinkGeek, and I had to either live with the beige devices, or re-color them. So I painted them. CD-ROM/DVD-ROM drives are very easy to take apart (hell, I can do it!), and some floppy drives (assuming you still use one) are even easier. Just take the faces off, take the drive tray out (CD/DVD), and paint them with spray paint.
Disclaimer: you screw up your stuff, it ain't my fault. You have been warned!
Once you have them dismantled, paint them using thin layers of paint; better to have several thin layers than one thick one. The first coat should not even be opaque--you should still see beige! Do it right, and you'll be left with a black (or other color) surface, with no impact on performance; I painted the entire tray of my DVD drive, including the gear mechanism on the bottom, and have yet to have a single problem. Looks sharp.
Incidentally, I got the idea from an old friend of mine. She had a computer painted with the "granite" paint you see in some paint departments. Looked pretty cool. But you can use any color; the trick it to take your time and use thin coats.
Actually, Motorola didn't take the name from a record player, they took it from the Victrola radio. Motorola (Motor Victrola) marketed the first successful car radio. Incidentally, the unit was designed by the same man (Bill Lear) who invented the eight-track player, the Learjet, and a long list of other devices.
There's an Xbox that's broken and it isn't in any living room in America yet. The Xbox demo unit at a nearby Toys R Us store could not give consumers a taste of the new Microsoft console because of severe loading problems.
Ah, but that's where you're wrong. It's doing an outstanding job of giving consumers a taste of Microsoft.
First of all, I agree wholeheartedly with your comments about schools' purchases of computers, and their ultimate disuse of them. I graduated from high school two years ago last May, and I saw how our systems were, or were not, used. Probably a million dollars' worth of equipment throughout the district (and I'm not exaggerating--between the labs with IBM Eduquest-series PC's, Novell network software, and token ring networking, to the teachers' systems, Digital machines on ethernet, which were replaced after four (IIRC) years, across a high school, three middle schools, and I don't remember how many elementaries, plus admin buildings), and most of them were only minimally used. Teachers often had only passing familiarity with the systems; one used the system primarily to collect South Park clips (in RealMedia format, no less!), with many others in the same category. Windows licensing no doubt cost a small fortune, to achieve a network with almost as much reliability as a 15-year-old Chevy. All of the copies of Office were at least one version out of date, making it a royal PITA for most students to transfer work from home to school (and no e-mail for students, either--sneakernet only). Bess, that wonderful internet proxy, stopped more useful research than it did pr0n. Students were limited to eight (IIRC) pages of hard copy from the printers at any given time--meanwhile, those of us in Honors English were writing papers that often ran to eighteen. Yes, the systems were a waste. The administration was not exactly the most clueful, either, but what do you expect on a public school salary?
The big thing about the funding, though, is that most of it couldn't have been used any better. Most of the funding for our computers came from grants, with stipulations that the money be used to bring technology into the classroom. I never did find out who donated the money (MS, trying to get another group of kids, and another school, hooked on Wind'ohs?), but the stipulations were clear--no tech, no dough. It would have been nice to have money that could be used to hire some decent teachers (we had a few very good ones, but we had a number of not-so-good ones too...names withheld to protect the guilty...). From what I'm told, this is actually a fairly common situation. If the money were to be given to the general fund, it would be a lot more useful. I understand why it is not, having seen how our administration handled itself (yes, i actually attended school board meetings; dad and I made a sport of embarrassing board members)--I know what would likely have happened. So, while I agree that the money could be better used, before complaining, it might be wise to check out the source of the money, and see if there were other options. The administrators might have their hands tied. 'Course, they might also just be dolts. (OR, not XOR.)
One of the first sightings of the Osama-Bert poster...
Osama-bert? Sounds like a new Dilbert character. Think "Dogbert," but nicer.
Nothing to see here, folks...move along
on
GPS Drawings
·
· Score: 5, Interesting
I s'pose it would be impolite to point out that this is nothing particularly new. Matter of fact, we hams have had something like this for years, but a little more fun: APRS, or Automatic Packet Reporting System. Basically, the GPS receiver is connected to a TNC (packet radio modem), and broadcasts its position at a time interval specified by the user. Now I can see where you are going. Couple the reception of the GPS data with mapping software, and you get this. Very entertaining to see where your buddy is going ("No, no, I said turn left on Brooks!"), and very useful at times--throw the rig in your trunk before you give the keys to your kid. QST did an article about this a few years ago; if I weren't so lazy, I might go look it up. Feel free to post it, anybody, if you find it.
...c'mon, where's the craftsmanship? Where's the pride in your work? When I wrote viruses, it was all about doing it yourself, accomplishing something. Now you don't even have to be a programmer, you just have to know how to point-and-click. I tell ya, when pride in craftsmanship goes down the toilet, there's nothing left.
The problem with this approach is the target of the surveillance. Human intelligence (HUMINT) works againt large organizations, like countries, because within any large organization, you have malcontents, dissidents, and others whom for whatever reason, don't like the organization, and will help you. If these people exist, they can be identified and tapped. If, for some reason, they can't be found, a last-ditch solution is to find somebody who looks (physically) enough like the people being monitored, can pass for a local, and get him into the organization. With large organizations, this is always possible, because large organizations always need new members, and lack the ability to do a complete background screening on everybody.
Small organizations, like terrorist cells, have no such weaknesses. They are deliberately kept small for this reason--with every new member, you add another potential security hole. Members are screened very carefully, and are usually admitted as family members, or other such extremely close ties. They are a known quantity before they are invited to join. Their loyalty is unquestioned, and if it should ever come in to question, they are shot. No questions, just dead--that's the only thing the can do, as the stakes are so high. Dissidents don't exist. As for penetration, just forget about it. Again, the membership is essentially invite-only. You can't walk into a cell and say "hi, I'm new in town, and I'm looking for a fun-loving bunch of guys to cause a little mayhem. Are you accepting new members?" Somehow, I don't think you'd walk out of the meeting alive, assuming you could find it in the first place. The operational security on these groups is incredible, because it has to be. There is no realistic and reliable way to get operatives into a group like this. No operatives, no HUMINT. Oh, sure, you might get lucky, and have somebody have a change of heart, and volunteer his services to the local authorities, but that's a one-in-a-million chance.
I hate to say it, but communications intelligence (COMMINT) and signals intelligence (SIGINT) are the only way to gather operational data on these groups. We have satellites that can listen to their cell phones (and we use them), we can track their locations (to a degree) with photo/recon satellites, we can (attempt to) intercept their internet communications (we'll generally fail, but again, we might just stumble across something that was improperly encrypted...not likely, I know)...we really can't get inside information. The nature of their organization depends on strict operational security, and they know it. They take extreme measures to ensure that security.
More spooks in the field works well against a country, but it just doesn't work against a small, determined group. I don't know the government structure of Afghanistan well enough to make an informed prediction about it, but I would imagine that they keep things fairly secure, just because they have a long history of conflict (see Russia), and wouldn't want to take chances unnecessarily.
Slashdot Mirror
When I started using Netflix (early adopter here...been a member for over two and a half years), the plan allowed 4 movies at a time, for twenty bucks a month. They have since changed that policy (six months ago, maybe? I don't remember), and now allow three on hand instead of four; however, I seem to have been "grandfathered" in allowing me to have four movies on hand, and still for twenty bucks, instead of the basic plan's current 3. From my "Membership Terms" page:
I mention this not to gloat to new users, but to point out that, unlike so many companies, who say "these terms subject to change without notice," Netflix seems to be of the opinion that I should continue to get what I signed up for, even when they decide to change their program. I wish more companies would do this--Go Netflix!
Also, about two years ago, they did a survey on possibly expanding their service to include video games (probably PlayStation discs, although they might have also been considering cartridges, I don't know). As far as I can tell, that idea didn't go anywhere (I personally said I wouldn't use it, because I don't have any game consoles), but with their popularity growing (substantially, it seems), it might be possible to resurrect it, if enough people ask for it.
(In case you couldn't tell, yes, I am very happy with them, and no, I don't work for them.)
from the 100-click-dash dept...
As opposed to the 100-klick-dash dept., which would be interesting...
Actually, I was thinking about an idea like this just a few weeks ago. Most government documents are distributed electronically as PDF files (in addition to physical distribution). The latest version of Acrobat includes JavaScript functionality (IIRC), and I know it has some basic math functionality. It seems to me that tax forms would be prime candidates for inclusion of formulae and functions; if not the full IRS 1040A, then at least the 1040 EZ, and perhaps some of the other simpler schedules. Such a system could aid everybody--taxpayers and the IRS, who would not need to spend so much time checking for errors (I know they do it, last year they caught an error on my taxes that resulted in a $200+ refund).
Actually, I wish they would make more of their forms a little bit more functional. All of the forms I've seen appear to be simply scans of the paper copies. Acrobat provides for the ability to create fields, which can be filled out on the form, so that it may be printed out complete, instead of having to print it out, then put it in a typewriter and fill it out. For example, I work for the aviation department of a major university. FAA Form 8710 is the application for a pilot certificate. That form is distributed electronically, in PDF form; it can be downloaded and printed out, but only in the blank form. Several months ago, I created for our use a copy of that form with proper fields, so that the form may be filled out before printing, then printed out complete. This has saved our secretary significant effort--she no longer has to worry about the typewriter, lining things up, etc. I estimate that, over the course of the past six months, and three hundred or so applications, she has probably saved a dozen or more hours of unnecessary work; I "finished" the PDF in approximately six hours; that may seem high, but there are approximately 150 fields on that form, of various types, and it was my first time using Acrobat. Somebody competent could probably have done it in an hour. Also remember that the government has a mandate to reduce the onerous burden of such paperwork: the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.
Anyhow, it seems to me that most of the government forms distributed as PDF's are not even remotely taking advantage of the capabilities of the Portable Document Format, and that, on tax forms in particular, the government is falling behind the power curve in complying with the Paperwork Reduction Act, as well as good form. Just a suggestion, guys.
Now it's really going to be a bitch to use your laptop on an airplane...
"Did you pack your own bags?"
"Has anybody asked you to carry anything onboard the airplane?"
"Is that laptop running an Intel Pentium95 with ActiveDeath technology?"
Looks to me like the law school is getting more than the engineering school...
documented on slashdot
I rest my case.
Actually, Mozart was quite thoroughly compensated for his work. The great musicians of the time were usually signed by a benefactor, generally a Lord/King/Noble of some sort, then kept on commission for producing works of art. I've forgotten who was Mozart's benefactor, but he most certainly did work for profit. This was true not just in music, but in many fields--Machiavelli, for example, was at one point patronized by the Medici family.
As to Britney, I don't think she has been helped so much by copyright as she has by a huge marketing arm and the mindless sheep^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H American public, most notably the teenage male market (not to pick on the guys, see also: N*SYNC, et al.).
In any event, allowing the artist the opportunity to make money from his art seems only right--he is creating something, the consuming public is availing itselvf of his work, why shouldn't he have that opportunity? If you choose to create and distribute for free, that's your choice--you're welcome to it (please don't come to me for support vis-a-vis welfare, however); if somebody else decides that they want to be paid for their work, why should they be prevented from doing so?
if they have written agreements with Google, Altavista, and the other search engines. If not, perhaps their name should be removed from the engine.
Same with the phone books...
Ironically, the story mentions another bit of government suppression of information:
So the same government that has been invading our privacy and publishing the data now says that "some things shouldn't be made public." The same government that says we shouldn't be allowed to hide things that might be used against us has decided to hide things that might be used against us. I wonder if this new-found interest in information security will also be applied to our personal information. (Now taking bets.)
Perhaps asswipo.com?
The problem is, company profiteering notwithstanding, they're making it obvious that's all they're interested in. "Oh look! The gaming industry has lots of money! We can get some of that!"
There's a term for this sort of behavior. You might want to write this down for future reference, so I'll wait for you to get a pencil. Ready? Good. The term is:
Microsoft is expanding into a new market to try to increase profits? Say it ain't so! What, exactly, do you think is the purpose of a company? I realize that we're dealing with Microsoft, and therefore required to hate them, but seriously--companies exist to make money. You want to see expansion into a new market? Look at Sony--I have a 25 year old Sony TV. That's long before the PlayStation was a gleam in some engineer's eye. At some point after my TV was made, Sony decided to get into the game console market. Have you noticed that they now have a music division, and movie division (Sony Pictures Studios), and several other divisions not related to their previous business of building non-interactive entertainment hardware (stereos, TV's, etc.)?
If Microsoft wants to diverisfy its business, let them. If you think about it for a bit, you'll realize that it's almost certain to be a good thing. Look at the options:
In any event, the introduction of a new system will create competition, driving down prices and spurring innovation. End result: consumer wins. Leave the Xbox alone, and let the market decide.
...and next week, it will barely run the latest version of Windows.
Glad somebody else has noticed this. I have an 802.11b network at home, and another at work; I use them to keep my (and my roommates') laptop(s) on the network without having to drag 100+ feet of Cat5 around the place. Do I feel limited by using "only" 11Mbps? Hell, no! I rarely break 1Mbps--on any network. I used to use a 100Mbps wired network, with a decent NIC in my laptop (3Com hardware NIC, not a WinNIC), a decent 100MBps switch, and still rarely broke 1Mbps, even with my desktop machines running closer to 50 Mbps. Why? In short, laptops suck. Seriously--when you're looking for performance, you don't look at laptops. The hard drives are much slower than anything in a desktop, the bus speeds are slower (my laptop has a 66MHz FSB; my desktop has a 133, with DDR RAM); everything is slower and scaled back. 11Mbps is no limit to a laptop, in my experience. It would be a limit to a desktop terminal connected to the WLAN, but most people/companies don't use wireless for desktops.
Granted, we could probably saturate the WLAN if we had twenty or so people all trying to pull large files, but that condition has its own flaws: 1) how often does the situation occur--even in a meeting, with 30 people attending, how many of them are trying to pull big files at a given time (usually none...), and 2) how many clients can an access point actually handle? Most of the ones with which I'm familiar (consumer equipment, admittedly) get flaky around 20-30 people; any more, and you need another AP--add another AP, and you effectively double the bandwitdh, as you're splitting the load across two different AP's, each on a different channels. Also remember than many networks are still only 10 Mbps, because of the high infrastructure cost of upgrading a major network (particularly if recabling is required); on such a network, the bit behind the AP is already the bottleneck, so it's not that big of a deal if the WLAN is only 11Mbps.
In short, yeah, it's neat, it's cool, but it's not that big of a deal, as long as laptops don't get a major bus upgrade. A chain is only as strong as it's weakest link.
Methinks it has already started...Friday night, I was flying a Cessna 152 from Oklahoma City, OK to Indianapolis, IN. I saw several meteors, including a couple of strange ones--one was greenish in color, had a strobe-ish sort of effect, and appeared to be at about 20,000 feet; another was normal white, but again, looked fairly low. I was already talking to Center, and asked them about it, thinking maybe the Air Force was doing some sort of exercise, but they confirmed that there were no other aircraft in the area. There's some cool stuff up there, and even at 5,500 feet, you can see a whole lot more than you can on the ground. I will never forget some of the ones I saw last Friday.
Any chacne one of thoes sprises could be a web itnerface to aspel?
The two janitors were highly annoying. They reminded me of characters from another movie/show that I cannot think of right now. They should have been dropped.
The two janitors were highly annoying. They reminded me of my cow-orkers from my last job. They (my cow-orkers) should have been dropped; the characters were perfect.
And I believe I have seen the impossible...this review appears to have been written by Cmdr. Taco, but I didn't see a single spelling mistake. Who's the ghostwriter?
Certainly, this is a victory for the open source crowd. The idea that source code is speech is so natural to us as to be common sense. Having that view upheld by the court is indeed a triumph of law.
However, I'm afraid I have to put a damper on the fun. The court ruled that source code is speech; compiled executables received no such protection. As such, posession of the DeCSS source code is legal, but use or posession of binaries, or even compilation of source (which would produce a binary) is not legal. "You can have it, but you can't use it."
As a practical matter ( WARNING! I am not a lawyer. This is not legal advice! If you try this don't say I told you it was OK! If ever there was a time for the BLINK tag, it's this disclaimer...), since you can posess the source code, there is nothing to realistically stop you from using the binaries. In theory, when the system works right, you cannot be searched without a warrant, which requires probable cause to obtain. If you give the feds probable cause, you deserve what you get, but if you keep your mouth shut and use the software quitely in your home, nobody should be able to get a warrant, and you should not be subject to prosecution (under the rule of "it's only illegal if you get caught"). This would also rule out binary distribution--draws attention to yourself. ( Another BLINK disclaimer: I am not advocating breaking any law. I am merely offering my uninformed interpretation of the legal system. ) The DMCA has not been overturned here, it has just been found not to apply to source code. And for those who are thinking what I'm thinking, interpreted languages aren't a back door. You may be able to posess the Perl version of DeCSS, which is executed from source (for all practical purposes), but execution would be circumvention, and the DMCA says "no" to that.
Good points from the case:
Bad points:
Brief summary, in my own words: you can have it, but you can't use it.
They come in a can. Says "Krylon" on the side.
Seriously, I built a system using the black Lian Li case from ThinkGeek, and I had to either live with the beige devices, or re-color them. So I painted them. CD-ROM/DVD-ROM drives are very easy to take apart (hell, I can do it!), and some floppy drives (assuming you still use one) are even easier. Just take the faces off, take the drive tray out (CD/DVD), and paint them with spray paint.
Disclaimer: you screw up your stuff, it ain't my fault. You have been warned!
Once you have them dismantled, paint them using thin layers of paint; better to have several thin layers than one thick one. The first coat should not even be opaque--you should still see beige! Do it right, and you'll be left with a black (or other color) surface, with no impact on performance; I painted the entire tray of my DVD drive, including the gear mechanism on the bottom, and have yet to have a single problem. Looks sharp.
Incidentally, I got the idea from an old friend of mine. She had a computer painted with the "granite" paint you see in some paint departments. Looked pretty cool. But you can use any color; the trick it to take your time and use thin coats.
Actually, Motorola didn't take the name from a record player, they took it from the Victrola radio. Motorola (Motor Victrola) marketed the first successful car radio. Incidentally, the unit was designed by the same man (Bill Lear) who invented the eight-track player, the Learjet, and a long list of other devices.
There's an Xbox that's broken and it isn't in any living room in America yet. The Xbox demo unit at a nearby Toys R Us store could not give consumers a taste of the new Microsoft console because of severe loading problems.
Ah, but that's where you're wrong. It's doing an outstanding job of giving consumers a taste of Microsoft.
First of all, I agree wholeheartedly with your comments about schools' purchases of computers, and their ultimate disuse of them. I graduated from high school two years ago last May, and I saw how our systems were, or were not, used. Probably a million dollars' worth of equipment throughout the district (and I'm not exaggerating--between the labs with IBM Eduquest-series PC's, Novell network software, and token ring networking, to the teachers' systems, Digital machines on ethernet, which were replaced after four (IIRC) years, across a high school, three middle schools, and I don't remember how many elementaries, plus admin buildings), and most of them were only minimally used. Teachers often had only passing familiarity with the systems; one used the system primarily to collect South Park clips (in RealMedia format, no less!), with many others in the same category. Windows licensing no doubt cost a small fortune, to achieve a network with almost as much reliability as a 15-year-old Chevy. All of the copies of Office were at least one version out of date, making it a royal PITA for most students to transfer work from home to school (and no e-mail for students, either--sneakernet only). Bess, that wonderful internet proxy, stopped more useful research than it did pr0n. Students were limited to eight (IIRC) pages of hard copy from the printers at any given time--meanwhile, those of us in Honors English were writing papers that often ran to eighteen. Yes, the systems were a waste. The administration was not exactly the most clueful, either, but what do you expect on a public school salary?
The big thing about the funding, though, is that most of it couldn't have been used any better. Most of the funding for our computers came from grants, with stipulations that the money be used to bring technology into the classroom. I never did find out who donated the money (MS, trying to get another group of kids, and another school, hooked on Wind'ohs?), but the stipulations were clear--no tech, no dough. It would have been nice to have money that could be used to hire some decent teachers (we had a few very good ones, but we had a number of not-so-good ones too...names withheld to protect the guilty...). From what I'm told, this is actually a fairly common situation. If the money were to be given to the general fund, it would be a lot more useful. I understand why it is not, having seen how our administration handled itself (yes, i actually attended school board meetings; dad and I made a sport of embarrassing board members)--I know what would likely have happened. So, while I agree that the money could be better used, before complaining, it might be wise to check out the source of the money, and see if there were other options. The administrators might have their hands tied. 'Course, they might also just be dolts. (OR, not XOR.)
From the Wired article:
One of the first sightings of the Osama-Bert poster...
Osama-bert? Sounds like a new Dilbert character. Think "Dogbert," but nicer.
I s'pose it would be impolite to point out that this is nothing particularly new. Matter of fact, we hams have had something like this for years, but a little more fun: APRS, or Automatic Packet Reporting System. Basically, the GPS receiver is connected to a TNC (packet radio modem), and broadcasts its position at a time interval specified by the user. Now I can see where you are going. Couple the reception of the GPS data with mapping software, and you get this. Very entertaining to see where your buddy is going ("No, no, I said turn left on Brooks!"), and very useful at times--throw the rig in your trunk before you give the keys to your kid. QST did an article about this a few years ago; if I weren't so lazy, I might go look it up. Feel free to post it, anybody, if you find it.
...c'mon, where's the craftsmanship? Where's the pride in your work? When I wrote viruses, it was all about doing it yourself, accomplishing something. Now you don't even have to be a programmer, you just have to know how to point-and-click. I tell ya, when pride in craftsmanship goes down the toilet, there's nothing left.
The problem with this approach is the target of the surveillance. Human intelligence (HUMINT) works againt large organizations, like countries, because within any large organization, you have malcontents, dissidents, and others whom for whatever reason, don't like the organization, and will help you. If these people exist, they can be identified and tapped. If, for some reason, they can't be found, a last-ditch solution is to find somebody who looks (physically) enough like the people being monitored, can pass for a local, and get him into the organization. With large organizations, this is always possible, because large organizations always need new members, and lack the ability to do a complete background screening on everybody.
Small organizations, like terrorist cells, have no such weaknesses. They are deliberately kept small for this reason--with every new member, you add another potential security hole. Members are screened very carefully, and are usually admitted as family members, or other such extremely close ties. They are a known quantity before they are invited to join. Their loyalty is unquestioned, and if it should ever come in to question, they are shot. No questions, just dead--that's the only thing the can do, as the stakes are so high. Dissidents don't exist. As for penetration, just forget about it. Again, the membership is essentially invite-only. You can't walk into a cell and say "hi, I'm new in town, and I'm looking for a fun-loving bunch of guys to cause a little mayhem. Are you accepting new members?" Somehow, I don't think you'd walk out of the meeting alive, assuming you could find it in the first place. The operational security on these groups is incredible, because it has to be. There is no realistic and reliable way to get operatives into a group like this. No operatives, no HUMINT. Oh, sure, you might get lucky, and have somebody have a change of heart, and volunteer his services to the local authorities, but that's a one-in-a-million chance.
I hate to say it, but communications intelligence (COMMINT) and signals intelligence (SIGINT) are the only way to gather operational data on these groups. We have satellites that can listen to their cell phones (and we use them), we can track their locations (to a degree) with photo/recon satellites, we can (attempt to) intercept their internet communications (we'll generally fail, but again, we might just stumble across something that was improperly encrypted...not likely, I know)...we really can't get inside information. The nature of their organization depends on strict operational security, and they know it. They take extreme measures to ensure that security.
More spooks in the field works well against a country, but it just doesn't work against a small, determined group. I don't know the government structure of Afghanistan well enough to make an informed prediction about it, but I would imagine that they keep things fairly secure, just because they have a long history of conflict (see Russia), and wouldn't want to take chances unnecessarily.