I'm a pureblooded geek at heart. Several years ago I went through a really bad relationship where I basically gave up my geeky life to conform to whatever BS she thought was right. Needless to say, not only was I miserable, but so was she. Yes, I was whipped. But never again.
Now I have a very simple policy. I currently live alone in a moderately sized house and I have gone out of my way to be sure there are computers in every room (except the bathrooms, but I'm working on it). This is how it is now, and this is how it will remain. Anyone who comes along is well aware of this fact. If they have serious problems with it, then they can get out of it before it ever begins. If they wouldn't want to live in that type of an environment, then they wouldn't be interested in me anyways.
And I HAVE had relationships since I've implemented this little policy of mine, and it has never been a problem. It might seem somewhat crass to suggest that a bunch of computers are more important than a relationship, but its not just aa bunch of computers, its who you ARE. Its as much a part of your life as what you eat, where you live, and the type of person you want to spend your life with. And if the person currently ringing your doorbell will be in constant conflict with your geeky lifestyle, then you would both be better off if you just didn't answer the door.
Book publishers just need to deal with it, like everyone else. There has already been an article on slashdot a few weeks back stating that the great majority of a book's sales will occur in the first few months after publication, and insignificant returns after that, in all but a few exceptional cases.
If I'm an advid reader with limited funds to spend on books, I might spend some of the money on the latest and greatest, but it only makes sense for me to get more bang for my buck by purchasing used books at discounted prices. I would do so anyway at conventional used book stores, but the online bookstores only increase the selection. The money spent there will likely be spent elsewhere in ways that the original publisher will not benefit. They have nothing to get pissed about.
In fact, there's the potential fact that someone will buy up large quantities of a current author's older works and therefore be a prime candidate for purchasing new copies of the author's new books as they're released. This is a GOOD thing for the publishers.
-Restil
Re:Sad news ... Stephen King dead at 54
on
Java Powers of Ten
·
· Score: 1, Offtopic
Funny thing is, we don't really know what the milky way looks like from a distance. For the most part we make assumptions based on the structure of our galaxy compared to others that we CAN see. However, there is still much a lot of leeway in how the actual shape might turn out to be someday when technology is capable of making a more accurate ascertation.
Also, don't forget, but we can only see a fraction of our own galaxy, and a large swath of the universe can't be observed either since our own galaxy is so dense that the center of the galaxy blocks our view to the other side. Its only pure luck that we're located so close to the edge of the galaxy that we're able to see out at all.
First of all, they could have started further out than just the milky way galaxy. They should have presented the top level as the entire known universe and worked inward from there. Several orders of magnitude gone to waste on that one.
Second nitpick, 10 billion and 100 billion km don't match up. They don't zoom in by a factor of 10.
Third minor nitpick. The 10 light years zoom has too many stars. Perhaps they're simply showing background stars, but if that were the case, there would be background stars all the way up until the point that earth fully engulfed the frame. Still, only a minor nitpick.:)
This article beautifully summarizes the conditions of cheating and where the online game companies have dropped the ball. Its one thing to prevent hacking. Its not EASY to do so, but with proper security auditing, it can be done.
In-game cheats are much more difficult to control and eliminate. Most of them require actions that no legitimate user would ever make, but the software is so complex, with modifiers upon modifiers, server crashes, timewarps, multiple game servers that have to pass user data from one to the other, etc. The chances of finding EVERY problem is slim. And while the obvious holes need to be patched, the only surefire way to stop cheating is to make sure the users won't do it.
DAOC has it right. There is no tolerance for cheating. You can't do it accidently. You intend to do so maliciously and therefore you're gone. If all the users realize that if they cheat they will be caught and they will be permanantly banned, then it will discourage such activity in the long run. Trolls of course are a different issue. myg0t and other losers have made it their sole mission in life to take pleasure in the misery of others. Groups to find honest players might help weed out some of those as well, but its difficult if you can't 100% control the people you play with. And people can easily ruin the gaming experience for someone in ways that don't violate a TOS.
For instance, in Ultima Online, there was a huge PK problem. While they were annoying, at least they generally played within the bounds of the rules, but not always. However, the real problems were the looters that had a notoriety which "protected" them from the good players because attacking them to protect a fallen comrade or to keep someone from robbing your house. They might have fixed it in future versions, but the whole idea of assigning notoriety to help people identify the good from the bad completely defeated the purpose of using it in the first place. Life would have been better off if there was no notoriety at all. People would learn quickly enough who was good and who was evil. And if you encounter some stranger on the road in real life you have no idea if they're good or not. And so should it be in the games. Let people police the game themselves. And when you encounter some random traveller on the road, you SHOULD be catious. And there can be skills to determine if that person was recently involved in a battle, and maybe even who it was they attacked/killed/etc. But this would be far better than being punished for protecting what belongs to you.
Find a small town, clearly too small to handle hundreds of thousands of conventioners.
Don't make any reservations, and make no effort to alert the local authorities or businesses of any such gathering. Only announce the location at the last minute (but give general area ideas so people can choose to go or not).
Everyone bring at least one computer, and if necessary a portable generator in case massive attempts at leeching power from elsewhere fail. Wireless networks might seem convienent here, but there would be a certain charm to actually running cat 5 cable all over the place.
It'll be the first physical slashdotting. And after witnessing such an event, it might give some perspective to what the poor sysadmins have to go through when they're the unlikely target.:)
Of course, I'm KIDDING!!!!! This would definitely NOT put geeks in a good light. But damn it sure would be funny.:)
The universe could have been created by a controlled explosion where a matter/antimatter universe pair were created simultaniously, perhaps with a controlled beginning. Black holes could be used as output devices, spitting out vast streams of data that a higher intellegence could be collecting and analyzing.
But what kind of program? Perhaps its something as trivial as a complex "Game of Life" scenario. Perhaps the universe itself is trivial in the grand scheme of things. Perhaps it represents a single CPU in a vast SMP system of trillions upon Trillions of other processors. Imagine the framerate on THAT monster.:)
You mean, they're letting the script kiddy USE the computer? they're letting him USE the internet still? And his only "restriction" if you can call it that, is to not use the script kiddy software, and to not associate with people involved in disreptuable activities.
Ya know, conditions of parole/probation are that you A. not break the law and B. not associate with people that do. And usually, you are also assigned restrictions to some excess related to the crime you were convicted of. If you get a DUI, you'll probably be banned from drinking, during the period of your probation. That's NORMAL.
So the poor little script kiddie has a laundry list of "you can't do this" kinda things in exchange for not having to sit in a jail cell for several years. My heart goes out to him. No really.:) *snicker*
We're not talking about using this technology to make courtroom identifications. We're using it to notify security that you MIGHT have someone in front of you that is of less than reputable character. This doesn't mean you immediately cuff him and throw him in jail, but if he tries to walk through a screener checkpoint it MIGHT be a good idea to do a little better check than a simple wand wave. In the meantime, someone can be checking the pictures to see if that person's face actually matches the match the computer made. With a.1% false positive rate, you could have a couple paid employees just looking at matching pictures to see if there's really cause for concern or not. At the rate people go through screening checkpoints now, they'll get a "match" about once every 10 minutes or so, your mileage may vary with larger airports, its all a matter of scale.
As for false negatives, even 50% is better than nothing as long as the false positive is much MUCH lower. Imagine catching 50% of the hijackers on September 11 before they boarded the planes. A lot of red flags could have gone up, and flights could have been delayed, the rest of the passengers could be more carefully scrutinized. No, this is not the solution to any problem. And no, it should not be used legally any more than a lie detector can be. Its a guide. It tells us where we might need to concentrate more of our efforts on.
As far as threats to privacy go, this makes sense in an airport, but it does not make sense out on the street. People go into an airport expecting to be searched, questioned, carded, etc. They do not have the same expectation while walking down the street. So unless the cops are currently chasing someone, they lose him, and you have a striking resemblance, they shouldn't bother you at all.
Lets see what you mean by "no competition". I'm certain, no matter where you live, there's at least one isp that offers dialup access. ISDN is also probably available. However, these are slow, but they ARE alternatives as soon as your "shitty overpriced cable" becomes too expensive to make sense.
But they're so very slow. Fair enough, call your phone company and check on the prices for T1's. With a T1, you'll get comparable maximum speeds with your cable, you'll get the same 1.54mbps upstream that you do down. You'll get NO bandwidth restrictions, and your line will stay up ALL the time, or there will be hell to pay if it doesn't. I get the impression you won't feel your cable is so horribly overpriced anymore.
But don't give me this crap about there being no alternatives. The only alternative you don't have is an unlimited pipe with unlimited restrictions at a price that doesn't even break even for the company providing it. If that cable service of yours was so horribly overpriced, there would be competitors lined up to offer service in your area. In fact, why don't you do it yourself? Invest several millions of your $$ or find yourself a willing venture capatalist to fund it for you, bury all the lines, market yourself, get those customers, and figure out for yourself how to deal with the bandwidth hogs while at the same time offering service that is better than "shitty" and at a very low price.
Depends on several factors. The most important ones are the pipe bandwidth, the amout of data to transfer, the amount of ram available on the server, the amount of ram needed per process, and the server time needed to complete a dynamic page creation.
There are two ways to slashdot a site. Either it has too little bandwidth to handle the rush of visitors, in which case it slows down to the point where most attempts fail before a connection can be made. Or the server, due to a large quantity of dynamic processes takes too long to run the individual processes and runs out of available physical ram and starts thrashing, which just slows it down more, until the point that the box is useless. Of course, both issues can contribute to the problem.
There are several ways to avoid these problems. More bandwidth always helps, but reducing the amount of data per page to send is cheaper and easier. Stipping down the images and gzipping the html source helps immensely. Use static pages wherever possible, especially for the homepage. Limit the total number of connections so that a fully loaded server won't exceed your ram limits. Better to deny access to some and let others through, rather than destroy it for everyone. Keep your dynamic processes fast. Mod them into the server if possible. The less time they run, the less time they allocate ram.
All that being said, if you're going to submit your site to slashdot, you better be ready for the slashdot effect. None of this is new to anyone who visits here on a regular basis. WE all know what happens, so should they. They could have loadtested their server beforehand.
Say what you like about the annoying X10 ads. Yes, they're annoying. Yes they're smutty. But they do have one redeeming feature that I have yet to find in any other popup ad. They give you the option to disable it, without resorting to technical measures that otherwise limit, even in some small way, the capabilities of the browser.
Other ad companies should pay attention here. Since X10 ads are so prevelant, its only safe to assume that X10 is profiting from them. Its also safe to say that the site owners are getting paid from the impression of them, otherwise you wouldn't see them everywhere. So X10 had a great idea to win on both fronts. For those people who most certainly do not want to see them, X10 can save impression costs. And after disabling the ads, a whole lot of people will quit bitching about those annoying X10 ads. X10 gets to keep advertising to an audience that's a more willing potential customer than those who curse the day X10 was born everytime another ad pops up.
At least this is a better form of market research than gathering random bits of private information about people. And probably far more effective.
IC's don't cost TOO much if they're not of the.13 micron variety that you see in the CPU's. Small runs of a small die size will cost a few hundred $$$'s each, but that drops dramatically with larger runs. The designer doesn't need his own fabrication plant and can probably do all the prototyping necessary for a few thousand dollars or less. Not chump change, but certainly not out of the range that your dedicated individual couldn't create and market them. Don't forget that most of the cost involved with creating new chips is the R&D costs, which is mostly labor, which can be written off as sweat equity depending on the size of the orginization thats producing them.
First of all, there is more software to buy than just the $100 operating system. The compilers, the office applications, all the educational games for windows are typically extra or third party applications that cost more money. Several hundred dollars more money per machine. And to make sure the licenses are in compliance they need to spend that on every machine its installed on even if its not used, so they're caught with either tailoring each machine to only the applications it can be used for, or doing bulk installations and paying extra to avoid the hassle.
And yes, hardware costs $800+ per system, but consider that this is the hardware needed to run the latest windows applications. Or at least run them well. Also, don't forget that the great majority of systems for schools don't require the prebuilt OEM systems that you see running at your local best-buy. They don't always need sound cards, $200 video cards or 17 inch monitors. They don't need CDROM burners or CPU's in the 1ghz+ range.
Software and operating system Maintenance is also cited as a reduced cost with a linux based network. Mass installations can be easily scripted, and since the majority of the software is free you don't have to concern yourself with extra installations becoming a problem for future audits. In addition, the schools can choose to invest a lot in one or more primary server systems to run all the application software and use the rest of the linux machines as X stations, saving a lot of money on individual systems as they won't require the processing power or storage space.
As for introductory students, they probably will never use the shell prompts in their application courses. They can do everything they need to do without ever leaving the comfort of their GUI. When students get into programming or basic system admin, then they can tackle those things.
And don't assume that kids will always give up the first time they see an obstacle. Kids will overcome ANY obstacle if they want to, its simply a matter of providing adaquate incentive. Something as simple as being able to change the settings of the desktop might motivate someone to learn how to edit a configuration file, and they'll probably pick up a few other skills at the same time. When computers became cool, a whole lot of people that would never have touched a computer in their lives quickly picked up how to use them. It wouldn't matter how "hard" or complex it was, if all their friends were doing it, then they would too.
From what I can tell, this should mostly be an in-house issue. Let's say that these discoveries are frauds. That means they won't ever be used in applications, and Lucent will lose out. If no other scientists are able to replicate the process, then they won't be able to reap the benefits of it either. There is a REASON for this peer review. And it seems to be working. There are many possible reasons why things are turning out like they are, fraud being one of them.
However, its possible that the procedures involved are not trivial. Its also possible that either the procedures involved to produce or the procedures involved to confirm the findings are in error. Observing a single molecule is NOT trivial. It's certainly possible to think you've got what you were looking for, when in fact it sometimes takes another pair of unbiased eyes to take a different approach and discover that all is not what it appears to be.
I'm not saying this isn't outright fraud. The only problem is, what does it benefit anyone? If the scientist involved was pocketing all the research cash and running with it, I could understand. But if the research is legitimate, and nobody is able to actually profit from any of this without a working prototype in a useful medium, which may take up to 10 more years to produce, fraud would serve little purpose except give a black eye to the researchers AND Lucent.
I'm not sure what causes it, but the same thing happens to me the first time I ride a roller coaster in a while. After that the effect is diminished and eventually I don't even notice it at all. I think its a natural response by the body, probably the adreneline rush, since after riding 10+ rollercoasters in a day, that rush doesnt' exist anymore. Your body has adapted to the hostile conditions you're putting it through and doesn't bother responding negatively.
As far as the other issues go, if someone dies on a rollercoaster and it's not the result of a mechanical failure, they probably had a health problem to begin with, even if they weren't aware of it. Occasionally (one out of thousands and thousands) someone gets injured as a result of excessive G-forces.
Here's a few other things that people get seriously injured, ill, or die from. Food poisoning. Allergies. Car accidents. Stress. Alcohol abuse. Drug abuse. Electrical shock. Cigarettes. Just to name a few. Humans are mortal. We are not invincible. It's quite possible that statistically speaking, you might DIE today for a completely unexpected reason. While nobody likes it, its a fact of life that most people seem to accept. We take a risk everytime we get out of bed in the morning. But sometimes that's a risk worth taking.
But if banner ads which will profit the creator of the virus are posted on every single infected computer... how hard would it be really to follow the money to find the author of the worm?
Or was I the first one to read the article?:)
-Restil
Re:The guy sounds like a world-class sleazeball.
on
Hacking Web Services
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
I don't know if you're being sarcastic or not, so I'll assume you're not.
1) Yes, this is a form of security through obscurity. However, the methods they use to counter attacks are not intended to make the system more secure, but hopefully to identify those that are abusing it. The actual problems are much more fundamental in nature. You have to weigh the user friendliness of a free and open network, with the fact that a significant number of people would destroy the network if they had a chance. The alternatives were stated in the article. Require actual names and credit card #'s from everyone. However, they don't want to take it to that extreme, so they're forced to use clever tricks to counter the malicious actions of those who only seek to abuse.
2) The distributed computing comment was a joke. The point of asking a user to compute a simple math problem is to trump the bots, not to accomplish any task of economic significance.
3) Obfuscated HTML is possible now, and not too difficult to implement. He could do it if he wanted to, and it would at least slow down the bots. Why not do it? Well, it slows down the connections, and it will break some browsers. So they continue in the name of greater compatibility rather than some locked down browser specific html coding nightmare that creates more problems than it solves. And no, he's not suggesting packetflooding the offender, even if he jokingly implied it. He's looking for a defense that does not involve governmental regulation and does not involve decreasing the openness of the internet.
Assuming you're doing this for the educational experience and not because you plan to end up with a powerhouse computer when you're done, your best bet will be to build something on the scale of the Apple II. The first bit of good news, the parts necessary to build it are dirt cheap now.
The first thing you need to do is to understand all the logic gates and how they work, and then work with the various logic gate chips (the 74 series) to get various simple experiments working. This will get you familiar with HOW the circuits are passing information around, as well as give you some experience with wiring the components together in a useful fashion.
After that, CPU's and memory are just largescale versions of your typical logic chips. Of course, its not as simple as it sounds and you definitely have your work cut out for you if you plan to do it completely from scratch. If you want to follow some old schematics your job will be simpler, but that might defeat some of the purpose.
As for programming, you'll be starting at the raw assembly level. You'll also need some type of interface to input and view data, as well as storage. In the beginning, you can use programmable rom chips to hold enough operating system information to get you going. Yes, you will have to develop at least a simple operating system.
Hope I didn't scare you too much. If you manage to get all that working, you'll be in a great position to move onto something more complex. Today's computers won't even seem that complex anymore, it will simply be a matter of scale.
You've lost the DVD. No matter what you do, the pirates got you on that one. It won't be until the next major technology update that you get to enforce anything. So here's my plan for you. Forget trying to control the entire tech industry. Since people might copy those files they download online, don't make anything available online. Yes, that could be a viable market in the future, but since you're so worried about piracy, simply don't use it.
Don't allow any manufacturers to create a drive that can read your next incarnation of the DVD. Yes, a lot of people have computers, and a lot of people will want to use those computers, and their lack of ability to watch movies on that medium might result in fewer sales for you, but that's a risk you have to take.
You have no right to control an entire industry just because you're concerned that your outdated business strategy might fail as a result. And be careful. You're stepping on a lot of toes here. You might end up alienating a significant percentage of your market, far in excess of the perceived damage that piracy might cause. I for one have almost completely stopped watching movies. It used to be I'd go to the theatre at least once a week, and I'd rent movies several times a week, I had cable, I bought tapes. Not anymore. I canceled cable, I never watch TV at all anymore. I saw episode 2 last thursday. I will probably not see another movie until december. I've chosen a new form of entertainment and it doesn't involve you in any way. Mostly I do this because I want to avoid addicting myself to a medium that someday might be restricted for me. That way, when you finally let the hammer drop, it won't make a bit of difference to me.
But getting inside my computer WILL make a difference to me, especially if I don't ever watch your crappy movies. There are a whole lot of people that will accept substandard, inconvienent, expensive ways to watch their movies, in the name of preventing piracy. But once you reach into someone's computing experience outside of movies, you're going to piss people off. And you will not benefit from it.
They mentioned Challenger. They reason they didn't explore it in depth is because its a well known event that has been discussed at great length recently. Same with Titanic. The article chose to focus on events that are not as well known as the more popular events. And they succeeded, since other than the AT&T incident, I wasn't aware of any of them.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm a pureblooded geek at heart. Several years ago I went through a really bad relationship where I basically gave up my geeky life to conform to whatever BS she thought was right. Needless to say, not only was I miserable, but so was she. Yes, I was whipped. But never again.
Now I have a very simple policy. I currently live alone in a moderately sized house and I have gone out of my way to be sure there are computers in every room (except the bathrooms, but I'm working on it). This is how it is now, and this is how it will remain. Anyone who comes along is well aware of this fact. If they have serious problems with it, then they can get out of it before it ever begins. If they wouldn't want to live in that type of an environment, then they wouldn't be interested in me anyways.
And I HAVE had relationships since I've implemented this little policy of mine, and it has never been a problem. It might seem somewhat crass to suggest that a bunch of computers are more important than a relationship, but its not just aa bunch of computers, its who you ARE. Its as much a part of your life as what you eat, where you live, and the type of person you want to spend your life with. And if the person currently ringing your doorbell will be in constant conflict with your geeky lifestyle, then you would both be better off if you just didn't answer the door.
-Restil
Book publishers just need to deal with it, like everyone else. There has already been an article on slashdot a few weeks back stating that the great majority of a book's sales will occur in the first few months after publication, and insignificant returns after that, in all but a few exceptional cases.
If I'm an advid reader with limited funds to spend on books, I might spend some of the money on the latest and greatest, but it only makes sense for me to get more bang for my buck by purchasing used books at discounted prices. I would do so anyway at conventional used book stores, but the online bookstores only increase the selection. The money spent there will likely be spent elsewhere in ways that the original publisher will not benefit. They have nothing to get pissed about.
In fact, there's the potential fact that someone will buy up large quantities of a current author's older works and therefore be a prime candidate for purchasing new copies of the author's new books as they're released. This is a GOOD thing for the publishers.
-Restil
maybe he'd been browsing at +4.
-Restil
Funny thing is, we don't really know what the milky way looks like from a distance. For the most part we make assumptions based on the structure of our galaxy compared to others that we CAN see. However, there is still much a lot of leeway in how the actual shape might turn out to be someday when technology is capable of making a more accurate ascertation.
Also, don't forget, but we can only see a fraction of our own galaxy, and a large swath of the universe can't be observed either since our own galaxy is so dense that the center of the galaxy blocks our view to the other side. Its only pure luck that we're located so close to the edge of the galaxy that we're able to see out at all.
-Restil
well, ok.. to nitpick.
:)
Two things.
First of all, they could have started further out than just the milky way galaxy. They should have presented the top level as the entire known universe and worked inward from there. Several orders of magnitude gone to waste on that one.
Second nitpick, 10 billion and 100 billion km don't match up. They don't zoom in by a factor of 10.
Third minor nitpick. The 10 light years zoom has too many stars. Perhaps they're simply showing background stars, but if that were the case, there would be background stars all the way up until the point that earth fully engulfed the frame. Still, only a minor nitpick.
-Restil
This article beautifully summarizes the conditions of cheating and where the online game companies have dropped the ball. Its one thing to prevent hacking. Its not EASY to do so, but with proper security auditing, it can be done.
In-game cheats are much more difficult to control and eliminate. Most of them require actions that no legitimate user would ever make, but the software is so complex, with modifiers upon modifiers, server crashes, timewarps, multiple game servers that have to pass user data from one to the other, etc. The chances of finding EVERY problem is slim. And while the obvious holes need to be patched, the only surefire way to stop cheating is to make sure the users won't do it.
DAOC has it right. There is no tolerance for cheating. You can't do it accidently. You intend to do so maliciously and therefore you're gone. If all the users realize that if they cheat they will be caught and they will be permanantly banned, then it will discourage such activity in the long run. Trolls of course are a different issue. myg0t and other losers have made it their sole mission in life to take pleasure in the misery of others. Groups to find honest players might help weed out some of those as well, but its difficult if you can't 100% control the people you play with. And people can easily ruin the gaming experience for someone in ways that don't violate a TOS.
For instance, in Ultima Online, there was a huge PK problem. While they were annoying, at least they generally played within the bounds of the rules, but not always. However, the real problems were the looters that had a notoriety which "protected" them from the good players because attacking them to protect a fallen comrade or to keep someone from robbing your house. They might have fixed it in future versions, but the whole idea of assigning notoriety to help people identify the good from the bad completely defeated the purpose of using it in the first place. Life would have been better off if there was no notoriety at all. People would learn quickly enough who was good and who was evil. And if you encounter some stranger on the road in real life you have no idea if they're good or not. And so should it be in the games. Let people police the game themselves. And when you encounter some random traveller on the road, you SHOULD be catious. And there can be skills to determine if that person was recently involved in a battle, and maybe even who it was they attacked/killed/etc. But this would be far better than being punished for protecting what belongs to you.
-Restil
Find a small town, clearly too small to handle hundreds of thousands of conventioners.
:)
:)
Don't make any reservations, and make no effort to alert the local authorities or businesses of any such gathering. Only announce the location at the last minute (but give general area ideas so people can choose to go or not).
Everyone bring at least one computer, and if necessary a portable generator in case massive attempts at leeching power from elsewhere fail. Wireless networks might seem convienent here, but there would be a certain charm to actually running cat 5 cable all over the place.
It'll be the first physical slashdotting. And after witnessing such an event, it might give some perspective to what the poor sysadmins have to go through when they're the unlikely target.
Of course, I'm KIDDING!!!!! This would definitely NOT put geeks in a good light. But damn it sure would be funny.
-Restil
Great idea.
The only problem is, at the rate we're going, your patent will expire before we get around to colonizing anything.
-Restil
The universe could have been created by a controlled explosion where a matter/antimatter universe pair were created simultaniously, perhaps with a controlled beginning. Black holes could be used as output devices, spitting out vast streams of data that a higher intellegence could be collecting and analyzing.
:)
But what kind of program? Perhaps its something as trivial as a complex "Game of Life" scenario. Perhaps the universe itself is trivial in the grand scheme of things. Perhaps it represents a single CPU in a vast SMP system of trillions upon Trillions of other processors. Imagine the framerate on THAT monster.
-Restil
MIDI'S!!!! Yeah, there were some of those. But MOD's... Those were the shit. :)
-Restil
You mean, they're letting the script kiddy USE the computer? they're letting him USE the internet still? And his only "restriction" if you can call it that, is to not use the script kiddy software, and to not associate with people involved in disreptuable activities.
:) *snicker*
Ya know, conditions of parole/probation are that you A. not break the law and B. not associate with people that do. And usually, you are also assigned restrictions to some excess related to the crime you were convicted of. If you get a DUI, you'll probably be banned from drinking, during the period of your probation. That's NORMAL.
So the poor little script kiddie has a laundry list of "you can't do this" kinda things in exchange for not having to sit in a jail cell for several years. My heart goes out to him. No really.
-Restil
We're not talking about using this technology to make courtroom identifications. We're using it to notify security that you MIGHT have someone in front of you that is of less than reputable character. This doesn't mean you immediately cuff him and throw him in jail, but if he tries to walk through a screener checkpoint it MIGHT be a good idea to do a little better check than a simple wand wave. In the meantime, someone can be checking the pictures to see if that person's face actually matches the match the computer made. With a .1% false positive rate, you could have a couple paid employees just looking at matching pictures to see if there's really cause for concern or not. At the rate people go through screening checkpoints now, they'll get a "match" about once every 10 minutes or so, your mileage may vary with larger airports, its all a matter of scale.
As for false negatives, even 50% is better than nothing as long as the false positive is much MUCH lower. Imagine catching 50% of the hijackers on September 11 before they boarded the planes. A lot of red flags could have gone up, and flights could have been delayed, the rest of the passengers could be more carefully scrutinized. No, this is not the solution to any problem. And no, it should not be used legally any more than a lie detector can be. Its a guide. It tells us where we might need to concentrate more of our efforts on.
As far as threats to privacy go, this makes sense in an airport, but it does not make sense out on the street. People go into an airport expecting to be searched, questioned, carded, etc. They do not have the same expectation while walking down the street. So unless the cops are currently chasing someone, they lose him, and you have a striking resemblance, they shouldn't bother you at all.
-Restil
Lets see what you mean by "no competition". I'm certain, no matter where you live, there's at least one isp that offers dialup access. ISDN is also probably available. However, these are slow, but they ARE alternatives as soon as your "shitty overpriced cable" becomes too expensive to make sense.
But they're so very slow. Fair enough, call your phone company and check on the prices for T1's. With a T1, you'll get comparable maximum speeds with your cable, you'll get the same 1.54mbps upstream that you do down. You'll get NO bandwidth restrictions, and your line will stay up ALL the time, or there will be hell to pay if it doesn't. I get the impression you won't feel your cable is so horribly overpriced anymore.
But don't give me this crap about there being no alternatives. The only alternative you don't have is an unlimited pipe with unlimited restrictions at a price that doesn't even break even for the company providing it. If that cable service of yours was so horribly overpriced, there would be competitors lined up to offer service in your area. In fact, why don't you do it yourself? Invest several millions of your $$ or find yourself a willing venture capatalist to fund it for you, bury all the lines, market yourself, get those customers, and figure out for yourself how to deal with the bandwidth hogs while at the same time offering service that is better than "shitty" and at a very low price.
Good luck!
-Restil
Depends on several factors. The most important ones are the pipe bandwidth, the amout of data to transfer, the amount of ram available on the server, the amount of ram needed per process, and the server time needed to complete a dynamic page creation.
There are two ways to slashdot a site. Either it has too little bandwidth to handle the rush of visitors, in which case it slows down to the point where most attempts fail before a connection can be made. Or the server, due to a large quantity of dynamic processes takes too long to run the individual processes and runs out of available physical ram and starts thrashing, which just slows it down more, until the point that the box is useless. Of course, both issues can contribute to the problem.
There are several ways to avoid these problems. More bandwidth always helps, but reducing the amount of data per page to send is cheaper and easier. Stipping down the images and gzipping the html source helps immensely. Use static pages wherever possible, especially for the homepage. Limit the total number of connections so that a fully loaded server won't exceed your ram limits. Better to deny access to some and let others through, rather than destroy it for everyone. Keep your dynamic processes fast. Mod them into the server if possible. The less time they run, the less time they allocate ram.
All that being said, if you're going to submit your site to slashdot, you better be ready for the slashdot effect. None of this is new to anyone who visits here on a regular basis. WE all know what happens, so should they. They could have loadtested their server beforehand.
-Restil
Say what you like about the annoying X10 ads. Yes, they're annoying. Yes they're smutty. But they do have one redeeming feature that I have yet to find in any other popup ad. They give you the option to disable it, without resorting to technical measures that otherwise limit, even in some small way, the capabilities of the browser.
Other ad companies should pay attention here. Since X10 ads are so prevelant, its only safe to assume that X10 is profiting from them. Its also safe to say that the site owners are getting paid from the impression of them, otherwise you wouldn't see them everywhere. So X10 had a great idea to win on both fronts. For those people who most certainly do not want to see them, X10 can save impression costs. And after disabling the ads, a whole lot of people will quit bitching about those annoying X10 ads. X10 gets to keep advertising to an audience that's a more willing potential customer than those who curse the day X10 was born everytime another ad pops up.
At least this is a better form of market research than gathering random bits of private information about people. And probably far more effective.
-Restil
IC's don't cost TOO much if they're not of the .13 micron variety that you see in the CPU's. Small runs of a small die size will cost a few hundred $$$'s each, but that drops dramatically with larger runs. The designer doesn't need his own fabrication plant and can probably do all the prototyping necessary for a few thousand dollars or less. Not chump change, but certainly not out of the range that your dedicated individual couldn't create and market them. Don't forget that most of the cost involved with creating new chips is the R&D costs, which is mostly labor, which can be written off as sweat equity depending on the size of the orginization thats producing them.
-Restil
You didn't do the math correctly.
Its $16 million in revenue, true. But at the $4 production cost he quoted per CD, at 2 million cd's, thats $8 million, so you end up with $8 profit.
Granted, it probably doesn't cost $4 per CD to produce it, but for the purposes of the problem stated, it fits.
Now, the obvious solution here would be to reduce the per unit cost of each CD. Cutting out the middlemen would help significantly.
-Restil
First of all, there is more software to buy than just the $100 operating system. The compilers, the office applications, all the educational games for windows are typically extra or third party
applications that cost more money. Several hundred dollars more money per machine. And to make sure the licenses are in compliance they need to spend that on every machine its installed on even if its not used, so they're caught with either tailoring each machine to only the applications it can be used for, or doing bulk installations and paying extra to avoid the hassle.
And yes, hardware costs $800+ per system, but consider that this is the hardware needed to run the latest windows applications. Or at least run them well. Also, don't forget that the great majority of systems for schools don't require the prebuilt OEM systems that you see running at your local best-buy. They don't always need sound cards, $200 video cards or 17 inch monitors. They
don't need CDROM burners or CPU's in the 1ghz+ range.
Software and operating system Maintenance is also cited as a reduced cost with a linux based network. Mass installations can be easily scripted, and since the majority of the software is free you don't have to concern yourself with extra installations becoming a problem for future audits. In addition, the schools can choose to invest a lot in one or more primary server systems to run all the application software and use the rest of the linux machines as X stations, saving a lot of money on individual systems as they won't require the processing power or storage space.
As for introductory students, they probably will never use the shell prompts in their application courses. They can do everything they need to do without ever leaving the comfort of their GUI. When students get into programming or basic system admin, then they can tackle those things.
And don't assume that kids will always give up the first time they see an obstacle. Kids will overcome ANY obstacle if they want to, its simply a matter of providing adaquate incentive. Something as simple as being able to change the settings of the desktop might motivate someone to learn how to edit a configuration file, and they'll probably pick up a few other skills at the same time. When computers became cool, a whole lot of people that would never have touched a computer in their lives quickly picked up how to use them. It wouldn't matter how "hard" or complex it was, if all their friends were doing it, then they would too.
-Restil
From what I can tell, this should mostly be an in-house issue. Let's say that these discoveries are frauds. That means they won't ever be used in applications, and Lucent will lose out. If no other scientists are able to replicate the process, then they won't be able to reap the benefits of it either. There is a REASON for this peer review. And it seems to be working. There are many possible reasons why things are turning out like they are, fraud being one of them.
However, its possible that the procedures involved are not trivial. Its also possible that either the procedures involved to produce or the procedures involved to confirm the findings are in error. Observing a single molecule is NOT trivial. It's certainly possible to think you've got what you were looking for, when in fact it sometimes takes another pair of unbiased eyes to take a different approach and discover that all is not what it appears to be.
I'm not saying this isn't outright fraud. The only problem is, what does it benefit anyone? If the scientist involved was pocketing all the research cash and running with it, I could understand. But if the research is legitimate, and nobody is able to actually profit from any of this without a working prototype in a useful medium, which may take up to 10 more years to produce, fraud would serve little purpose except give a black eye to the researchers AND Lucent.
-Restil
I'm not sure what causes it, but the same thing happens to me the first time I ride a roller coaster in a while. After that the effect is diminished and eventually I don't even notice it at all. I think its a natural response by the body, probably the adreneline rush, since after riding 10+ rollercoasters in a day, that rush doesnt' exist anymore. Your body has adapted to the hostile conditions you're putting it through and doesn't bother responding negatively.
As far as the other issues go, if someone dies on a rollercoaster and it's not the result of a mechanical failure, they probably had a health problem to begin with, even if they weren't aware of it. Occasionally (one out of thousands and thousands) someone gets injured as a result of excessive G-forces.
Here's a few other things that people get seriously injured, ill, or die from. Food poisoning. Allergies. Car accidents. Stress. Alcohol abuse. Drug abuse. Electrical shock. Cigarettes. Just to name a few. Humans are mortal. We are not invincible. It's quite possible that statistically speaking, you might DIE today for a completely unexpected reason. While nobody likes it, its a fact of life that most people seem to accept. We take a risk everytime we get out of bed in the morning. But sometimes that's a risk worth taking.
-Restil
But if banner ads which will profit the creator of the virus are posted on every single infected computer... how hard would it be really to follow the money to find the author of the worm?
:)
Or was I the first one to read the article?
-Restil
I don't know if you're being sarcastic or not, so I'll assume you're not.
1) Yes, this is a form of security through obscurity. However, the methods they use to counter attacks are not intended to make the system more secure, but hopefully to identify those that are abusing it. The actual problems are much more fundamental in nature. You have to weigh the user friendliness of a free and open network, with the fact that a significant number of people would destroy the network if they had a chance. The alternatives were stated in the article. Require actual names and credit card #'s from everyone. However, they don't want to take it to that extreme, so they're forced to use clever tricks to counter the malicious actions of those who only seek to abuse.
2) The distributed computing comment was a joke. The point of asking a user to compute a simple math problem is to trump the bots, not to accomplish any task of economic significance.
3) Obfuscated HTML is possible now, and not too difficult to implement. He could do it if he wanted to, and it would at least slow down the bots. Why not do it? Well, it slows down the connections, and it will break some browsers. So they continue in the name of greater compatibility rather than some locked down browser specific html coding nightmare that creates more problems than it solves. And no, he's not suggesting packetflooding the offender, even if he jokingly implied it. He's looking for a defense that does not involve governmental regulation and does not involve decreasing the openness of the internet.
-Restil
Assuming you're doing this for the educational experience and not because you plan to end up with a powerhouse computer when you're done, your best bet will be to build something on the scale of the Apple II. The first bit of good news, the parts necessary to build it are dirt cheap now.
The first thing you need to do is to understand all the logic gates and how they work, and then work with the various logic gate chips (the 74 series) to get various simple experiments working. This will get you familiar with HOW the circuits are passing information around, as well as give you some experience with wiring the components together in a useful fashion.
After that, CPU's and memory are just largescale versions of your typical logic chips. Of course, its not as simple as it sounds and you definitely have your work cut out for you if you plan to do it completely from scratch. If you want to follow some old schematics your job will be simpler, but that might defeat some of the purpose.
As for programming, you'll be starting at the raw assembly level. You'll also need some type of interface to input and view data, as well as storage. In the beginning, you can use programmable rom chips to hold enough operating system information to get you going. Yes, you will have to develop at least a simple operating system.
Hope I didn't scare you too much. If you manage to get all that working, you'll be in a great position to move onto something more complex. Today's computers won't even seem that complex anymore, it will simply be a matter of scale.
-Restil
You've lost the DVD. No matter what you do, the pirates got you on that one. It won't be until the next major technology update that you get to enforce anything. So here's my plan for you. Forget trying to control the entire tech industry.
Since people might copy those files they download
online, don't make anything available online. Yes, that could be a viable market in the future, but since you're so worried about piracy, simply don't use it.
Don't allow any manufacturers to create a drive that can read your next incarnation of the DVD. Yes, a lot of people have computers, and a lot of people will want to use those computers, and their lack of ability to watch movies on that medium might result in fewer sales for you, but that's a risk you have to take.
You have no right to control an entire industry just because you're concerned that your outdated business strategy might fail as a result. And be careful. You're stepping on a lot of toes here. You might end up alienating a significant percentage of your market, far in excess of the perceived damage that piracy might cause. I for one have almost completely stopped watching movies. It used to be I'd go to the theatre at least once a week, and I'd rent movies several times a week, I had cable, I bought tapes. Not anymore. I canceled cable, I never watch TV at all anymore. I saw episode 2 last thursday. I will probably not see another movie until december. I've chosen a new form of entertainment and it doesn't involve you in any way. Mostly I do this because I want to avoid addicting myself to a medium that someday might be restricted for me. That way, when you finally let the hammer drop, it won't make a bit of difference to me.
But getting inside my computer WILL make a difference to me, especially if I don't ever watch your crappy movies. There are a whole lot of people that will accept substandard, inconvienent, expensive ways to watch their movies, in the name of preventing piracy. But once you reach into someone's computing experience outside of movies, you're going to piss people off. And you will not benefit from it.
-Restil
They mentioned Challenger. They reason they didn't explore it in depth is because its a well known event that has been discussed at great length recently. Same with Titanic. The article chose to focus on events that are not as well known as the more popular events. And they succeeded, since other than the AT&T incident, I wasn't aware of any of them.
-Restil