Actually it isn't. As the other respondant to your comment pointed out, it's possible to determine system type from the ICMP responses. One should also realize that not all exploits use fragmented ICMP attacks. There's all kinds of abuses of ICMP that could be concievably used to take a system down. It's better to nip any of those in the bud for a high volume site or set of sites.
You'll find that IE doesn't do so well at 640x480 or with larger or smaller fonts. Now, while that's the fault of the HTML work at the site (I've seen sloppier- but not by much...) they're not getting it to look like a Word document. There's TONS of sites out there that don't work right with IE or Netscape- Mozilla, possibly, but it's a huge honking monster that eats memory and HD space like candy (Does it work well? Yes. Do I use it, sometimes. I use Konqeror and Galeon mostly...).
I don't use HOTMAIL. Anyone concerned with their privacy shouldn't use it based on MS' terms of service for that and all their other online services. They lay claim to rights for all of what you put or recieve on their servers.
The stack most commonly used was Trumpet. Most everyone I knew of obtained it and used it unless they knew nothing about computers or the Internet and bought one of those all-encompassing Internet access packages. Trumpet worked implicitly and almost all applications worked with it correctly unlike the others. Hell, during that time, MS had a TCP/IP stack- but only for ethernet networking and it didn't work worth spit.
By the way, SOAP's not a "godsend"- it's XML RPC for all intents and purposes. For some things, it's a good idea- for others, you're better off using CORBA or something like it. As for the CORBA problems you describe, well, that was the Windows Vendors' problems- not CORBA in general. I mean, there's open source ORBs that plays nicely with nearly every ORB out there- ACE, MICO, OmniORB2... And if you're shopping an ORB and are using C++, ACE is fast, reliable and works across platforms well- and it just uses WinSock2 under Windows.
It's my understanding that legally they can't immediately charge his card for things not explicitly ennumerated up front on the transaction. Even though they claim that there will be a $150 per incident fine for excessive speed, since it's not ennumerated for each instance until they occur. They have to tell him up-front that they're going to charge him for the extra before EVER doing it.
Technically, the rental company can't charge for those- it's analogous to a Wal-Mart discovering that they undercharged you for something, taking your credit card number and charging the difference to your account.
Contracts are invalid if they make stipulations that are not legal (civil or criminal law) or require/involve illegal acts- PERIOD. It remains to be seen if the contract is legal- it matters little if it's their property if what they're stipulating can't be done by them.
Speeding is defined in most jurisdictions as either a misdemeanor or a felony depending on the amount of violation of the regulation in question. You have to enter a plea of not guilty, guilty, no contest when dealing with a speeding ticket. Guilty is obvious. No contest means you don't agree with the citation but you're not going to bother with the presentation of a case regarding the violation. Not guilty results in a court case being heard by a judge. In Texas, if you're doing something like 40 or so over the speed limit, it's deemed a felony and they'll haul you off to the clink- same story for Oklahoma and quite a few other states.
Someone even provided knowlege of the toys that you can use to do this. (Again, I am NOT advocating this! It's merely pointing out that someone clever could think of it and do it as easily as not.)
1) This is not law enforcement stuff. This is a rental company setting up a GPS/Speed Monitoring system tied to a central computer via mobile phone.
2) DMCA only applies to circumvention in the sense of copyright infringement. Blocking a signal isn't copyright infringement.
The most that this could be deemed is breach of contract- but I'll bet they can't/won't put language in there in that regard as hitting someone for the system never checking in because the mobile phone system was dead during the duration of the rental (which CAN happen) would cost them more than they lose in the form of a counter suit.
Has to be somewhere in the inside the coach part of the car or on the top of the vehicle in a relatively unobstructed place.
RF is blocked by metal of any kind- if they don't put this thing in some place that could be relatively easy for someone clever to find it's not going to work well- if at all.
Furthermore, since this uses Cell/PCS tech to communicate back to home, one could come up with a gadget that sourced about a microwatt or so of broadband RF power intended to be clipped to the antenna of the cell link that it uses. The little gadget's signal shouldn't be powerful enough to block most cell setups, but would swamp the targeted cell unit for the AirIQ system so that it'd be effectively deaf and dumb. (NOTE: I did not say that this was a good idea or that someone should set out to do this- it's just that it's very possible.)
Doesn't it bother people a little bit that there were two differing versions of this news item? Shouldn't WSJ be posting the final articles instead of the "early" versions for syndication?
Unless he signed an agreement saying that U of U owned it, it's STILL his. Please note that many universities lay claim to any copyrightable or patentable ideas or content produced by the student and the student has to sign those rights over to the school to attend. However, having said both, just because he did it "for" the school does NOT automatically make it their IP.
DMCA exists for one and only ONE reason- to CONTROL "intellectual" property.
Current patent and copyright law protects that already.
DMCA makes it illegal to own, make, or teach someone else how to make tools to exercise your fair usage rights. You're entitled to make copies of the content you've purchased for your own personal use (meaning for you and you alone). Doesn't matter what form the media is or the content- you're allowed that. DVDs don't let you play disks that are from different regions and if you've got a player that the DVD cartel didn't sanction (i.e. got a license from the DVD CCA to use CSS descrambling) then you don't get to play anything. The disk itself is not locked out (i.e. I can make an exact image copy with a DVD press and expect it to work, implicitly- if it were "protection" as you claim, it wouldn't work out that way).) and CSS is only there to prevent re-encoding to a new format or to play disks not in your region- it doesn't really protect anything
That, sir or madam, is content control not protection. It is there to keep people from making portion copies (fair use right) for personal projects, re-encoding to a lower bandwidth format (space/time shifting- another fair use right), and to keep them purchasing a disk in some other part of the world (Say, I buy in Singapore to watch on a DVD player there, but I live in the US- unless it's a region 1 disk, it's not going to be playable in a region 1 player...).
If you saturate the link (which is possible), your downstream speeds can all of a sudden drop to the same speeds as the listed upstream speed or worse. DSL links don't work quite that way.
Because it's not what you're thinking it is...
on
3D Glove Input Device
·
· Score: 2
They're not using fiber optics that I can tell (if the claims of the site are correct...)- no infringement with VPL possible.
They're using a technology that the parent company, one Abrams-Gentile Entertainment, developed and patented for their purposes. The company, AGE, worked with Mattel to develop the PowerGlove- so no infringement with Mattel possible since Mattel licensed it from AGE.
These links are the README, driver files, and schematic for the Menelli box interface (Which looks a LOT like the one mentioned in your links) for the PowerGlove...
The PowerGlove needs a specialized interface (I've got two- but I've not gotten around to it yet...), supported a small position space range because of the ultrasonic positioning system, only 6DOF directly in front of the display, and only 3 fingers and your thumb.
This is something most likely using the flexion sensor tech from the original glove, with USB support, a larger space (True 6DOF remains to be seen) and higher resolution for the positioning space.
The screenshots of some of the prototypes look like they have all four fingers and the thumb (The PowerGlove used only the first three and lumped your pinky with the middle finger next to it...).
Seems they're using some sort of IR based position system instead of the ultrasound pingers from the specifications (Sounds like the positioning system may double as the link back to the computer for wireless operation.).
Sounds like they've finally re-worked the PowerGlove (Which AGE had been saying for years now that they'd DO this...) with modern position tech (I'll bet they're still using the flexion sensor technology that they developed for the PowerGlove- which was impressive then and is still serviciable now (it'd make it a heck of a lot cheaper to make).
"And I'll be glad to stop the "non-sense comparison" as soon as Apple drops its nonsense benchmarks in which they claim that a 500 MHz G3 is faster than a 1000 MHz x86."
And how would you know that it's nonsense?
By comparing Quake III framerates in MacOS9 (With Rage128 card...) with your Linux or Windows machine (running a GeForce 2 card...)?
Or comparing Word on both machines?
I'm no Mac fanatic, but I do know something about CPU architechtures- and more specifically this one. It's derived from IBM's Power series architechture; this is the same overall design that they use on their engineering workstations and their z390 servers.
Plain and simple- integer performance for the earlier G3 CPU's was on a par with the Pentium II/III machines of the same clock, floating point performance overall was something like 1.5-2 times faster. (This doesn't even begin to cover the G4 architechture- which is even faster.) The reason it seems slower than an equivalent speed x86 CPU is that it's saddled with all that MacOS9 baggage.
From the sounds of it, for what matters to you, I suspect that the statement is "nonsense"- doesn't make it any less true though.
AT&T through Bell Labs did some research into a similar subject. They found that the suite spot for interactivity for voice conversations was no more than a 150 msec delay. Any more than that and you end up having halting conversations, stalls in discussion, misunderstandings, etc.
This is no different.
Interactivity is all about latency- and 200 msec is 1/5 of a second to put things in perspective. Try typing something with that sort of latency sometime- you'll find it unpleasant if you touch type.
Ping times determine the latency of a given connection.
Latency is the time that it takes to get one response from a server to a client upon the client's request.
Bandwidth affects latency- and is just about one of the only things you can do to impact it.
Switches insert latency.
Routers insert latency.
Modems insert latency.
Heavy traffic inserts latency.
Once you get latency, you can never rid yourself of it without major changes to your infrastructure.
To put this all in perspective:
The average latency without heavy traffic losses for a xDSL node to the frame relay at the DSLAM is something like 5-15 msec.
The average latency for a Cable node to a border router is something about 30-50 msec on an unloaded segment.
The average latency for a dialup modem (of ANY speed) is 250 msec- about 1/4 of a second.
The average latency for an 100-base-T adapter is 1-3 msec.
The average router latency is something like 2-5 msec.
The latency on frame relay can be a couple of msec if it's not loaded to hundreds of msec as it gives higher priority packets credence under load.
Each one of these things add up- and fast. And these don't go away unless you rip them out for faster equipment- adding bandwidth doesn't make those parts of the latency go away. That "speed of light" ping time you referred to just went "poof" because it was ate by the intervening hardware.
Slashdot Mirror
Actually it isn't. As the other respondant to your comment pointed out, it's possible to determine system type from the ICMP responses. One should also realize that not all exploits use fragmented ICMP attacks. There's all kinds of abuses of ICMP that could be concievably used to take a system down. It's better to nip any of those in the bud for a high volume site or set of sites.
There's a reason why thier stuff's pricier than the rest- it's overall reliability (except on their low, low end...) AND the support.
They really ARE this responsive.
...and then hit some site like espn.com.
You'll find that IE doesn't do so well at 640x480 or with larger or smaller fonts. Now, while that's the fault of the HTML work at the site (I've seen sloppier- but not by much...) they're not getting it to look like a Word document. There's TONS of sites out there that don't work right with IE or Netscape- Mozilla, possibly, but it's a huge honking monster that eats memory and HD space like candy (Does it work well? Yes. Do I use it, sometimes. I use Konqeror and Galeon mostly...).
I don't use HOTMAIL. Anyone concerned with their privacy shouldn't use it based on MS' terms of service for that and all their other online services. They lay claim to rights for all of what you put or recieve on their servers.
The stack most commonly used was Trumpet. Most everyone I knew of obtained it and used it unless they knew nothing about computers or the Internet and bought one of those all-encompassing Internet access packages. Trumpet worked implicitly and almost all applications worked with it correctly unlike the others. Hell, during that time, MS had a TCP/IP stack- but only for ethernet networking and it didn't work worth spit.
By the way, SOAP's not a "godsend"- it's XML RPC for all intents and purposes. For some things, it's a good idea- for others, you're better off using CORBA or something like it. As for the CORBA problems you describe, well, that was the Windows Vendors' problems- not CORBA in general. I mean, there's open source ORBs that plays nicely with nearly every ORB out there- ACE, MICO, OmniORB2... And if you're shopping an ORB and are using C++, ACE is fast, reliable and works across platforms well- and it just uses WinSock2 under Windows.
"I'd place a lot more value on a MSFT support contract than a LNUX one."
Evidently you've NEVER contacted MS for support or you're high enough on the food chain (i.e. someone like Dell, etc.) to get decent help.
There is no value in a support contract with a company that's going to be around for a while when the support's largely useless to most people.
It's my understanding that legally they can't immediately charge his card for things not explicitly ennumerated up front on the transaction. Even though they claim that there will be a $150 per incident fine for excessive speed, since it's not ennumerated for each instance until they occur. They have to tell him up-front that they're going to charge him for the extra before EVER doing it.
Technically, the rental company can't charge for those- it's analogous to a Wal-Mart discovering that they undercharged you for something, taking your credit card number and charging the difference to your account.
Contracts are invalid if they make stipulations that are not legal (civil or criminal law) or require/involve illegal acts- PERIOD. It remains to be seen if the contract is legal- it matters little if it's their property if what they're stipulating can't be done by them.
Speeding is defined in most jurisdictions as either a misdemeanor or a felony depending on the amount of violation of the regulation in question. You have to enter a plea of not guilty, guilty, no contest when dealing with a speeding ticket. Guilty is obvious. No contest means you don't agree with the citation but you're not going to bother with the presentation of a case regarding the violation. Not guilty results in a court case being heard by a judge. In Texas, if you're doing something like 40 or so over the speed limit, it's deemed a felony and they'll haul you off to the clink- same story for Oklahoma and quite a few other states.
Someone even provided knowlege of the toys that you can use to do this. (Again, I am NOT advocating this! It's merely pointing out that someone clever could think of it and do it as easily as not.)
1) This is not law enforcement stuff. This is a rental company setting up a GPS/Speed Monitoring system tied to a central computer via mobile phone.
2) DMCA only applies to circumvention in the sense of copyright infringement. Blocking a signal isn't copyright infringement.
The most that this could be deemed is breach of contract- but I'll bet they can't/won't put language in there in that regard as hitting someone for the system never checking in because the mobile phone system was dead during the duration of the rental (which CAN happen) would cost them more than they lose in the form of a counter suit.
Has to be somewhere in the inside the coach part of the car or on the top of the vehicle in a relatively unobstructed place.
RF is blocked by metal of any kind- if they don't put this thing in some place that could be relatively easy for someone clever to find it's not going to work well- if at all.
Furthermore, since this uses Cell/PCS tech to communicate back to home, one could come up with a gadget that sourced about a microwatt or so of broadband RF power intended to be clipped to the antenna of the cell link that it uses. The little gadget's signal shouldn't be powerful enough to block most cell setups, but would swamp the targeted cell unit for the AirIQ system so that it'd be effectively deaf and dumb. (NOTE: I did not say that this was a good idea or that someone should set out to do this- it's just that it's very possible.)
Doesn't it bother people a little bit that there were two differing versions of this news item? Shouldn't WSJ be posting the final articles instead of the "early" versions for syndication?
Unless he signed an agreement saying that U of U owned it, it's STILL his. Please note that many universities lay claim to any copyrightable or patentable ideas or content produced by the student and the student has to sign those rights over to the school to attend. However, having said both, just because he did it "for" the school does NOT automatically make it their IP.
DMCA exists for one and only ONE reason- to CONTROL "intellectual" property.
Current patent and copyright law protects that already.
DMCA makes it illegal to own, make, or teach someone else how to make tools to exercise your fair usage rights. You're entitled to make copies of the content you've purchased for your own personal use (meaning for you and you alone). Doesn't matter what form the media is or the content- you're allowed that. DVDs don't let you play disks that are from different regions and if you've got a player that the DVD cartel didn't sanction (i.e. got a license from the DVD CCA to use CSS descrambling) then you don't get to play anything. The disk itself is not locked out (i.e. I can make an exact image copy with a DVD press and expect it to work, implicitly- if it were "protection" as you claim, it wouldn't work out that way).) and CSS is only there to prevent re-encoding to a new format or to play disks not in your region- it doesn't really protect anything
That, sir or madam, is content control not protection. It is there to keep people from making portion copies (fair use right) for personal projects, re-encoding to a lower bandwidth format (space/time shifting- another fair use right), and to keep them purchasing a disk in some other part of the world (Say, I buy in Singapore to watch on a DVD player there, but I live in the US- unless it's a region 1 disk, it's not going to be playable in a region 1 player...).
If you saturate the link (which is possible), your downstream speeds can all of a sudden drop to the same speeds as the listed upstream speed or worse. DSL links don't work quite that way.
This is a link to the text entry in the USPTO's database for the sensor tech used in the PowerGlove. AGE owns that tech and appears to be a licensee of VPL for the idea patent.
They're not using fiber optics that I can tell (if the claims of the site are correct...)- no infringement with VPL possible.
They're using a technology that the parent company, one Abrams-Gentile Entertainment, developed and patented for their purposes. The company, AGE, worked with Mattel to develop the PowerGlove- so no infringement with Mattel possible since Mattel licensed it from AGE.
Try looking here for that...
(no one's tried to hack this for the Linux ... yet).
:-)
r s/ linux-powerglove.README
/ linux-powerglove.tgz
I do believe you're wrong...
http://www.ibiblio.org/pub/Linux/hardware/drive
http://www.ibiblio.org/pub/Linux/hardware/drivers
http://www.cms.dmu.ac.uk/~cph/menelli.html
These links are the README, driver files, and schematic for the Menelli box interface (Which looks a LOT like the one mentioned in your links) for the PowerGlove...
The PowerGlove needs a specialized interface (I've got two- but I've not gotten around to it yet...), supported a small position space range because of the ultrasonic positioning system, only 6DOF directly in front of the display, and only 3 fingers and your thumb.
This is something most likely using the flexion sensor tech from the original glove, with USB support, a larger space (True 6DOF remains to be seen) and higher resolution for the positioning space.
The screenshots of some of the prototypes look like they have all four fingers and the thumb (The PowerGlove used only the first three and lumped your pinky with the middle finger next to it...).
Seems they're using some sort of IR based position system instead of the ultrasound pingers from the specifications (Sounds like the positioning system may double as the link back to the computer for wireless operation.).
Sounds like they've finally re-worked the PowerGlove (Which AGE had been saying for years now that they'd DO this...) with modern position tech (I'll bet they're still using the flexion sensor technology that they developed for the PowerGlove- which was impressive then and is still serviciable now (it'd make it a heck of a lot cheaper to make).
"And I'll be glad to stop the "non-sense comparison" as soon as Apple drops its nonsense benchmarks in which they claim that a 500 MHz G3 is faster than a 1000 MHz x86."
And how would you know that it's nonsense?
By comparing Quake III framerates in MacOS9 (With Rage128 card...) with your Linux or Windows machine (running a GeForce 2 card...)?
Or comparing Word on both machines?
I'm no Mac fanatic, but I do know something about CPU architechtures- and more specifically this one. It's derived from IBM's Power series architechture; this is the same overall design that they use on their engineering workstations and their z390 servers.
Plain and simple- integer performance for the earlier G3 CPU's was on a par with the Pentium II/III machines of the same clock, floating point performance overall was something like 1.5-2 times faster. (This doesn't even begin to cover the G4 architechture- which is even faster.) The reason it seems slower than an equivalent speed x86 CPU is that it's saddled with all that MacOS9 baggage.
From the sounds of it, for what matters to you, I suspect that the statement is "nonsense"- doesn't make it any less true though.
Kind of makes concurrent development, etc. hard, now doesn't it?
AT&T through Bell Labs did some research into a similar subject. They found that the suite spot for interactivity for voice conversations was no more than a 150 msec delay. Any more than that and you end up having halting conversations, stalls in discussion, misunderstandings, etc.
This is no different.
Interactivity is all about latency- and 200 msec is 1/5 of a second to put things in perspective. Try typing something with that sort of latency sometime- you'll find it unpleasant if you touch type.
Ping times determine the latency of a given connection. Latency is the time that it takes to get one response from a server to a client upon the client's request. Bandwidth affects latency- and is just about one of the only things you can do to impact it. Switches insert latency. Routers insert latency. Modems insert latency. Heavy traffic inserts latency. Once you get latency, you can never rid yourself of it without major changes to your infrastructure. To put this all in perspective: The average latency without heavy traffic losses for a xDSL node to the frame relay at the DSLAM is something like 5-15 msec. The average latency for a Cable node to a border router is something about 30-50 msec on an unloaded segment. The average latency for a dialup modem (of ANY speed) is 250 msec- about 1/4 of a second. The average latency for an 100-base-T adapter is 1-3 msec. The average router latency is something like 2-5 msec. The latency on frame relay can be a couple of msec if it's not loaded to hundreds of msec as it gives higher priority packets credence under load. Each one of these things add up- and fast. And these don't go away unless you rip them out for faster equipment- adding bandwidth doesn't make those parts of the latency go away. That "speed of light" ping time you referred to just went "poof" because it was ate by the intervening hardware.