I was confused by that point as well. There is also this page -- the link is right there at the top -- that states:
"Technically speaking, the eighth drop in Parnell's famous Pitch-Drop demonstration experiment "fell" at the end of November last year, while I was overseas. Unfortunately the high-tech webcam's digital memory also suffered a bout of amnesia at the crucial moment. That was not all, however. When Parnell set up the demonstration in 1927 he could not have foreseen that during the gestation years of the eighth drop the University would decide to air-condition the two large lecture theatres in whose foyer the pitch resides, thus reversing the drop's seasonal experiences. That drop became by far the largest in the series, and when the time arrived for it to fall there was insufficient depth to the bottom of the beaker below for it to suffer a complete break."
Seven? Eight? Seems even they don't have a handle on it.
The two numbers are right next to each other no matter where on the keyboard you look. I can imagine someone mistyping it... it's not as if the page needs updating all that often. (Looks like the last update was 9 Apr.) Here's hoping they read/., notice this thread, and make the change. (Yeah, right.)
"The mechanics of blocked transmissions are easily understood. In general, it may involve simultaneous transmission from two aircraft or simultaneous transmission from an aircraft and ATC. These transmissions interfere with each other, "blocking" both signals. There is a widespread belief that such blocked transmissions would always be detected (i.e heterodyne heard by the pilot and/or ATC). An equally widespread belief, held by controllers, is that ATC transmissions are always heard. Neither is necessarily true. However, even if detected, it is often too late to do anything and aircrew and ATC are usually too busy managing events in progress."
The person who has the mic keyed isn't going to hear anything, and thus won't know their transmission wasn't received. The whole point is to notice that a communications breakdown happened and correct it before something bad happens.
I tried to make it clear that -41.25 was the very top end of allowed emissions for UWB. When GPS frequencies are at stake, the limits are much lower.
When referring to GPS frequencies, the FCC limit for indoor & handheld outdoor UWB devices is -75 dBm/MHz. GPR, wall imaging, and medical imaging systems are limited to -65, and thru-wall imaging and surveilance systems can go all the way up to about -53 dBm/MHz -- but only law enforcement, fire, and rescue organizations get access to that equipment.
The IEEE Powerpoint presentation has some interesting information on noise floors -- you might want to read that.
Claiming employment by a corporation in a particular field does not magically correct wrong information. It actually makes me wonder more why you're bothering to argue wrong information so strongly in the face of evidence to the contrary. Attention to detail (and bothering to look up those details!) would help you. I have tried to show you, but you have refused to look.
I must note one thing, though... you'd make an excellent scare-monger. You've got the Star Trek-style technobabble down pat. Have you considered a position as a lobbyist? How about running for congress?
This is the end of this thread from my end, I've made my point. All the info is there for those who care to read it.
"...the fact that the U.S. ATC relies on "dated" technology may be the reason it's so successful."
Oh God, thank you. I needed a laugh! "US ATC" and "reliable" in the same sentence, with a straight face even!
To the regular person, I suppose ATC could be looked at as 'reliable' -- but go talk to a controller sometime; the people who have to present the aura of reliability when something fails. Ask him (or her) how often their radio breaks. Or how hard it is to get vacuum tubes for some of their equipment. Perhaps you could visit the vampires -- the people who sit in an almost completely dark room dealing with everything IFR (and VFR in controlled airspace). Everything is voice and paper -- it's a sobering sight. Yes, there is a lot of computerization, but the interaction goes
Pilot (flight plan) -> computer -> piece of paper -> controller <-> pilot!
(Note the heads on the arrows.)
It's a wonder these people stay sane sometimes.
Canada privatized their ATC system, and (to an outsider) it has worked quite well. Communications systems are much better. The controllers don't have to keep track of planes on slips of paper, they can actually interact with the computer. One has to consider, however, that Canada doesn't deal with nearly the same daily volume of aircraft that the United States does, so their successes may not scale the way we'd need.
I must admit that the last time I was in an ATC facility was before the whole Y2K thing, and a lot of money was spent to upgrade things for that particular scare. Perhaps things are better now, but ATC doesn't live on internet time -- so I doubt it.
I know exactly what I mean by "heterodyne detection." I refer to the capability of a
circuit to detect when two transmitters attempt to operate on the same frequency simultaneously.
The 1977 Tenerife airport crash of two 747s (KLM & Pan Am) is frequently used as an example of
(1) a heterodyne happening (it was recorded on the cockpit tapes), and (2) the need for
this feature so all parties are alerted to the event.
Geez, you couldn't even type
"aviation radio heterodyne" into Google to see what I was talking about. Everything I've
posted comes up on the first page!
Advanced Aviation Technology Ltd. makes a device for this purpose,
their sales pitch (section 3)
describes the problem. (How nice of them.)
Over 500 people died in that fireball, and we still haven't standardized a solution. It's
been twenty-five-and-a-half years! That's enough time to come up with a lawyer-resistant
solution!
Not going to bother bashing lawyers here -- this is Slashdot, feelings on that
subject are well known.
"Let me run the numbers for you on interference."
Um... no. Your numbers are way off the mark. Assumptions are dangerous, you have an
internet connection, why didn't you use it?Google for "FCC UWB limits"
-- the first link is a whole set of info on power levels and spectrum allocation.
Digging a bit deeper, you'll find:
"...For now, UWB communications devices will be restricted to intentional operation only
between 3.1 and 10.6 GHz; through-wall imaging and surveillance systems restricted between
1.99 and 10.6 GHz (and used only for law enforcement, fire and rescue, and other designated
organizations) and automotive radars restricted to frequencies above 24.075 GHz."
Further, maximum output -- anywhere in the spectrum -- must be under limits set by part 15 (for now). That's -41.25 dBm/MHz.
I don't know if you'd even get to finish that sentence...
"Stand back! I have a bluetooth..."
"Eewwww, get away! Heard of a toothbrush? When was the last time you used one??"
"Blue tooth, huh? You really ought to see a dentist about that..."
Another down side is that geeks talking about tech are going to be put in the same category as people making jokes about bombs, guns, and hijackings -- subject to summary arrest.
FCC approves UWB devices for testing at power levels an order of magnitude less than is commonly believed to cause ANY interference,
AND
UWB devices have been tested, and found to interfere with the #1 topic guaranteed to scare large populations?
What device did they test? Where'd they get these things? How can I know they didn't just hook up a 30KV spark-gap transmitter and go "See??? Interference!" (Booga booga booga!!)
Oh, great. "UWB will cause a 747 to crash into the White House, curdle your milk, kidnap your virgin daughter and sell her to the Hells Angels, molest your wife, and defraud every company you've ever invested in!"
Great, sure. The airline industry (like any industry) hates to spend money unless it's absolutely necessary. Look at the current state of US air traffic control. (Yike!) Heck, look up the state of aviation radios, even! There's a simple little thing called "heterodyne detection" that isn't present! (People have died as a result!) Yes, there are fancy computers, and GPS, and "glass cockpits" -- but there are some extremely basic technologies of aviation that haven't changed in 50 years simply because nobody has said "That's dangerous and idiotic, we've had better tech for a generation! Do it right!!!"
On second thought... this is probably a good thing. It'll return air travel to its' proper place -- an enforced, several-hour vacation! Relax, look out the window, marvel at the world you live in. No phones, no computers, but lots of distractions. God forbid, you might even talk to your neighbor. (I wonder how many people even remember how to work with a pen and a piece of paper..?)
MT> You been quoted as stating, "man will always use his most advanced technology to amuse himself." Care to elaborate?
DC> Quotes are a funny thing - there are as many attributed to me that I didn't say as there are things I said many times that are easily forgotten. The best line I didn't say was, "It's a jungle in there!" referring to Pitfall! But the quote you mention has been referred to as "Crane's Law", and I firmly believe it.
(Snip the part about electric model airplanes)
Most advanced tech used for amusement... yeah, that fits. Just off-the-cuff I can think of a bunch of examples:
Gamers driving the high-end PC market
Doom 3
$400 GeForce/Radeon/Parhelia graphics cards
Any sports car from Ferarri/Porsche/Mercedes/BMW/Audi/Acura/Lexus/your favoritebrandhere
(For that matter, look at street racers putting Acura VTEC engines in their Honda Civics!)
Insanely huge home theater installations
Should I even point out that the porn industry was the first to release material using the advanced features of DVD? Or that they drove the adoption of videocassettes?
I'm sure other people can come up with even more examples.
Stage one testing complete.
Stage two testing complete.
Testing complete for http://google.com. Result: Reported as inaccessible in China
Great. All the sleaze you want, but one of the premier search engines is off limits. Decline of civilization indeed -- perhaps the result will create an interesting test case for future anthropology and psych students.
Pulled the.mov out of my browser cache. Think I'll watch it again, just because. As much as I may hate the politics of AOL/Time Warner and DVDs with their evil regions and encryption... I'm afraid I'm going to spend my money on it.
Figures. I would find this just after watching Ghost in the Shell.
Do my eyes deceive me? I doubt it. WCPUID is noting 3998.24 MHz in that picture! (It's most of the way down the page, if you want to see it in context.)
Bitch, bitch, bitch, bitch, bitch. To quote someone who dearly needs to be heeded in this case (Dennis Leary), "Shut the fuck up, NEXT!" I've heard enough crap, why don't we just call up Nikon and ask them for one of their explosive imaging cameras? If I remember my Guinness Book of World Records, that unit is a digital camera performing in the MILLIONS of frames per second! 12,000? Feh!
Gee, how about a simple Google search, even? Let's try that, shall we (since the Guinness world record site SUCKS!):
"Fastest Camera" search
First 3 links are about the same camera! A half-million dollars, 200 million frames per second.
"Ultrahigh-speed Imaging" search
Grab the.PDF in that first hit -- it's from "The Industrial Physicist", and has some nice info on a "gated still-video camera." A quote:
"Multisensor, ultrahigh-speed electronic
imaging systems (such as that shown in Figure
1) are capable of recording sequences of
discrete images at frame rates of up to 100
million pictures per second. They incorporate
compact, intensified charge coupled
device (CCD) modules that exhibit virtually
no geometric distortion or intensity variation
and provide the user with digital images that can be analyzed using a personal computer."
Oh, one other thing: The article is from December 1997 when Pentium IIs were hot stuff, and you counted yourself lucky to have 64 MB of RAM and a 9.1 GB F/W SCSI-2 hard drive!
Another point I quickly found is that high speed (million-plus FPS) imagery has been around since the late 80s. Most of it's digital. (Imagine that.) You can thank the US military for funding that.
IA-64 Itanium perhaps? However, looking at Intel's specs I don't see 866 listed as an available clock speed. They list the original Itanium at 733 and 800 MHz, and Itanium 2 at 900 MHz and 1 GHz.
I would have thought that IBM would plug their own hardware whenever possible -- the T221 display is certainly phenomenal, and they provide a link so you could buy one of those... It has me wondering how I can come up with $8400 to get one. (Heck, when those things came out, they were $20,000! Ah, progress.)
So, this leaves us to wonder... no mention of processors, "low" clock speed -- compared to what we're used to seeing -- something new from AMD? IBM pissed off at Intel? Some new massively parallel top secret silicon from IBM?
Watch... it'll turn out to be Pentium IIIs -- they call 'em "workstations," so they might have recovered them from some other project. (Or all the engineers got new workstations and wondered what cool project they could do with their old ones... Q3A at 3840x2400? What the heck!) What's the limiting factor in this case, processor power or network bandwidth?
I set up a Hotmail account on Sep 10, 2001. I needed to get a couple small files for a job, and since I had a cable modem I didn't have any internet access unless I was home. (Dial-up is so much more convenient in that regard...) Until that point, it was a small point of pride that I had not succumbed to Passport and all its' evil empire connotations. (So much for that...)
We soon realized there were more than a couple small files missing, so they FedEx'd a CD from Massachusetts to South Carolina. While I waited for the truck, I was reading/. -- and learned right here of the terrorist attacks. I ended up staring at CNN for an hour before the package came and I went to work.
Not a very auspicious start...
That hotmail account was spam-free for a month or so... I never used it other than to give the address to one person. I know for an absolute fact she didn't give it out or sell it or whatnot.
Let's see now... I haven't checked it in 2 days, so I wonder how much crap is in there?
73 Messages -- all spam, of course
362 KB
I don't know why I don't just let the account expire... morbid curiosity, perhaps?
Well, it's good to know that printer sucks. I'd noticed them, but never really considered one. My reaction to seeing one was more of "Gee, would you look at that. Color laser for $1000. (I wonder what corners they had to cut?)" The features are moderately impressive, but (no surprise, really) they don't have 'em plugged in so you can get a demo page.
Personally, I'd love to have an HP 8550 (11x17, 24 PPM, ~$7000), but I'll have to wait until (1) they hit the used market, or (2) I win the lottery.
HP has a bunch of nice color lasers, and don't forget Xerox -- they've been doing the toner-on-paper thing for longer than I've been around. I imagine they have a few nice products as well.
The 2-to-3 dollar figure for 20 pages of printing isn't referring to the cost of paper. It refers to the cost of the consumables that are going on the paper. 10 cents a page, 20 pages... bang. $2. That's for some of the larger-capacity inkjets, too. For the (smaller | cheaper) printers, especially with HP's notorious "economy" refills (read: "screw you, we're selling you a printer with half-empty cartridges"), the cost can be as high as 15/page just for ink. 15 X 20 pages = $3.
"Lasers may give better quality, but you'll pay for it."
You get what you pay for. Yes, the cost of a new printer is higher. (Buy a used one, I did!) Yes, the cost to replace the toner cartridges is psychologically formidable. However, that $94 high-capacity cartridge for my LaserJet 4+ will last me for years, and is rated for (max) 8800 pages! (If I manage to get only half that many, that's still 2.1/page -- 4 to 5 times less than an inkjet!) Also, at 20 pages a week it will take you 4.2 years (!!!) to print 4400 pages.
With penny-a-page paper you get very nice results from a laser printer. Run the same stuff through an inkjet and you will get some bleeding. Not a lot, but it's there. Your photo-quality paper cost you 26.6 per page on sale, and it's required if you want your maximum resolution. Ouch.
Last thing: What happens when you need to print résumés? High-quality résumé paper contains cotton rag. I prefer one paper that's 75% rag, and it bleeds noticably when run through an inkjet. (Yes, I know the alternative -- find someone with a laser or go to Kinko's... but it's nice to have your own.)
20 pages a week? That's a resonably substansial amount of printing.
In color, an inkjet will cost you (rough estimate) $2 to $3/week at that rate. That's not taking the cost of special paper into account. (Ask yourself if you need color -- what are you going to use it for?)
At the same rate, a used LaserJet will cost you roughly 50 for the same number of pages.
Really important point:
Laser printers produce a lot better output on cheap paper. Inkjets sometimes require paper that costs more than blank CD-Rs! ($1.00/sheet for photo quality paper!)
There certainly are reasons for an inkjet, too. You can't beat the entry price, but it's a Gillette business model -- lose money on the razors (printer), make (lots!) of money on the blades (ink). I recently heard tell a rumor about a disposable (recyclable?) inkjet -- the whole printer was cheaper than 2 replacement cartridges! (Ouch!)
If you really need color, an inkjet is hard to beat.
HP Inkjet printers can "mix" ink to create better-blended colors on a page. (I don't think they're alone in this capability, either.) HP calls it "Color Layering" -- it works because injets dyes and pigments aren't completely opaque, where laserprinter toner is.
Color laser printers are limited to placing 4 different colors of toner next to each other and letting your eye perceive something that's not really there. Sure, you could stack pixels just like an inkjet, but instead of blending colors, you'd just see the one on top (best case), or a melted brown smear (worst case).
Other side of the coin: Dyes fade. Pigments (for the most part) don't. This is why you can still dig out 20-year-old laserjet-printed material and it's perfectly readable. Print out a picture of your cat on an inkjet, leave it tacked up in your cube, and print out a new one -- same printer, same file -- a year later. You'll notice the fading.
There are some inkjets moving to pigment-based instead of dye-based inks. (It's a premium expense, though.) The output from these is supposed to be colorfast for much longer periods, but I haven't seen this first-hand.
Okay, last point: The Minolta (QMS) Magicolor 2200 color laser. Office Depot sells 'em for $999. Listed on Pricewatch (refurbished) for just shy of $800. 1200 x 600 dpi, 20 PPM B&W, 5 PPM Color. Even comes Ethernet-ready. Yes, it's expensive, but it seems like people drop that much on (new | upgrade) parts for their computer every 6 months.
There is a computer recycling / used computer store in Seattle called RePC. They buy stuff from companies (or charge 'em to haul the crap away) dust it off, and then sell it.
While browsing through their printers, I found a HP 5si/MX with the printer test page taped to the top... the page count was over 500,000. When I remarked on its' long and presumably rough life, the reply was "Oh, that's a young one! They usually don't wear out until about 2 million pages."
DAMN.
I had the misfortune to have to install some of those monsters when they were new... they came in on a 1/4-size oak pallet, and had to be moved by (1) a pallet jack, or (2) two burly men or three IT geeks. (They weigh well over 300 pounds.)
Personally, I have a LaserJet 4+ upgraded to 16MB RAM, and a IIIP with 5MB. They've served me for... good Lord, almost 5 and 8 years, respectively! I bought the 4+ used, and I've never had to replace the toner cartridge... so for 5 years of use it has cost me $150. (I think that's what I paid for it...)
The only desire to upgrade that I have experienced is when I found HP's LaserJet 8550 series -- color, prints on 11x17 paper. The 8000 series is the replacement for the 5si, so these things put out something on the order of 25 pages/minute B&W, and perhaps 1/4 that when using color. The estimated cost per page? About 3 cents, not including the purchase price of the machine.
As for me, I'll be looking for a used one. (Probably about 3 years from now.)
I must disagree. I will try to do so as respectfully as possible.
When I signed up for 768/128 ADSL, the agreement specifically stated "unmetered transfers." While I was specifically prohibited from reselling the service, I could (and did!) give away access. (I only noticed one other person use my wireless -- perhaps there were more, but I only actually "saw" one.)
Verizon (who was NOT my ISP) certainly didn't give a hoot about how much data crossed the physical line.
Now, about that "metered" part...
The amount of data that can be pulled through a 768-Kbit DSL line is finite. If your ISP charges you what it will cost them to route that much data, you aren't likely to hear complaints if you fill your pipe. (Though JWZ did, and he was using Covad at the time.) Worst case in my situation -- 31-day month with 100% usage 24/7 -- works out to ~280 Gigabytes in a month. MAX. In a conversation with one of the Blarg techs, I learned it costs ~$110/month to route 1 Mbit/sec through a Tier-1 US backbone. That's not including physical circuit fees.
The electricity argument is valid beyond the metering issue as well -- circuits (and transformers) have limits. If you provide one 15-amp circuit there is no danger of someone running their whole house off it, or setting up an electric-arc smelting operation (well, one of any size, anyway...) A flat-rate charge based on (120v X 15A)/1000 X 744 (hours in a 31-day month) X $0.10 (cost per KW/hour) means $134 will completely cover unmetered use of that 15-amp circuit.
Unfortunately, I had to move. Where I live now is not DSL capable, otherwise I'd still be using Blarg. The cable modem provider doesn't care about NAT (or servers to a limited extent), but they don't want "free internet" out there "on their dime."
Rather interesting, really... it seems the DSL providers have a more enlightened view of this issue than the cable providers. It shows the difference in culture and levels of greed. Also, my cable provider charges $15/GB for every GB (or fraction) over 10 GB/month. If I wanted to move as much data over cable as I could have on my DSL, my monthly cable bill would be ~$4100!!
Perhaps prices need to rise somewhat for "free wireless" to be ignored by all ISPs, but unlimited internet access is most definitly feasible.
Years ago -- and I mean something on the order of a decade -- I remember the famous racing-seat manufacturer Recaro offering an office chair. It was simply one of their less aggressive (read: touring instead of racing) seats attached to an office chair base. There was even a model that included power adjustments and bolted a small 12v battery to the frame.
Now, all I can find is this sad example. ~$1000 for fabric upholstery, ~$1500 for leather... but that's just one site I found on a Google search.
It's a shame the site is buried under the load, I'd like to see that chair. I've had the same idea for some time... I used to own a VW Corrado (which came with Recaro seats), and I often thought about mounting one of those on a swivel base for non-car use. That thing was comfy! However, looking at the prices for a new Recaro, I think I'll just search ebay for an Aeron.
Good show, I'd forgotten about all the different archives out there. I noticed that Google didn't have a cache of it, and stopped there.
Looking at the page, I note they weren't using the IndyCam, but the O2Cam.
I think I remember the lava lamps being backlit, that would make for a relatively easy transparent/opaque determination. The O2Cam is a color system, so you use what amount of which color is covering what percentage of which section of the image... there are a lot of ways to get your "digital output of the image" from which the calculations start.
Interestingly, a 921,600-byte image works out to 640 by 480 at 24-bit color. Reading further, it looks like that was exactly what they were doing -- blobs of color in various places, never the same twice. Neat idea, available (at the time) as a "Professional Service." I wonder if they still offer it... I'm sure they would, for enough money.
The only reference to Lavarand I could find at SGI's site, by the way, was an entry in a list of their trademarks.
Shocked! Yes, shocked and dismayed I am to note that the SGI lava-lamp random number generator has not been mentioned! Unfortunately, it seems to be gone. It's too bad, really... it was a VERY cool combination of the physical world and computers.
http://lavarand.sgi.com used to tell you about an apparatus that SGI's researchers had set up to generate "truly random" numbers. It worked by using several (about 6?) lava lamps clamped in laboratory stands and placed very close together. A SGI camera (an IndyCam, IIRC) was pointed at the slowly roiling liquids, and they generated random numbers by the percentage of the frame that was occluded. (Transparent vs. opaque liquid)
Or something like that. It's been years since I looked at it, and it's gone now. Damn.
I think I may have found what austad was referring to as a "Servicat." I found references to a "Savannah" -- a cross of an African Serval and a domestic cat. (I suppose you could request a Serval / Bengal mix from a breeder.)
This mix isn't quite accepted by the hoity-toity crowd as a "breed" yet, though several sites referred to an "experimental breed" listing.
Here are some of the facts and claims I found about the Savannah cat:
Cost: Kittens seem to be $500 - $2000, depending on gender and whether or not you have them (spayed | neutered).
Size: Expected maximum is about 25 pounds (12 kg). Claimed to be the largest domestic* breed.
Claim: More intelligent than "standard" domestic cats (more likely to get into things).
Claim: Less afraid of (or not afraid at all of) water.
One site referred to them as "dog-like" -- coming when you call their name, walking on a leash... weird things that no self-respecting cat would ever be caught doing.
* (I suppose that would be in the legal sense, as in "No, officer, it's not an exotic, wild animal; it's just my moggy (mutt) cat.")
As for my wife and I, we're quite happy with our two domestic shorthair moggies -- born to a feral cat outside a previous apartment, they're two true products of natural selection. Strong, lean, healthy, active... what I imagine God intended when creating "cat." We found them in a burrow under the concrete slab of our patio, and adopted them soon after. Yes, taming them took some time -- about a month -- but the only cost has been vet bills, food, sanitation, and more cat toys than I'd like to admit. It's been 5 years now, and there's no question -- we'd certainly do it again.
To the original author of this Ask Slashdot:
I strongly urge anyone looking for a unique pet to just spend some time in your local animal shelter -- the residents there would love 30 minutes of attention, even if you can't give them a home. Who knows... you might even find yourself getting attached to one of 'em. Unique isn't just breed or species... it can be attitude or personality as well!
I remember posting another comment about David Hahn at a much later date, (and asking Pathwalker if he had any recent info) but I can't seem to find it! (Dammit.)
Slashdot's robots.txt file is comprehensively restrictive, so if I feed Google "David Hahn site:slashdot.org", I get nothing.
Dear Cmdr Taco;
Would you please release (every few months or perhaps annually) a complete archive of Slashdot on CD or DVD? I imagine a simple.tar of the database would be sufficient, as most of your users would be quite capable of handling (and searching) that format. Personally, I think raw articles (no slashboxes, sidebars, etc...) in HTML format would be very useful.
Since CD/DVD production is relatively inexpensive, this could potentially be a non-trivial source of revenue for/.
Alternatively, perhaps Google could be convinced to donate one of their search appliances? Since many of us are quite proficient and familiar with Google's operation, it would make searching our collective memory that much easier.
Further, if a donation from Google is not possible, there are likely many of us who would be willing to donate to a search appliance fund.
Please, PLEASE consider these (and any other!) options to improve Slashdot searching.
This is analog cable they are talking about here. Calling it "code" makes it sound much more complicated than it actually is. Not that it could harm a VCR (or TIVO) anyway...
I remember the last time the "magic bullet" issue came up. This was several years ago, and it was TCI (the company AT&T bought out) doing it, IIRC.
Shortly after news of the coup hit the press, I started hearing about "magic bullet filters." They were sold under various names (both vague and unabashedly direct!), and were a shockingly simple notch filter.
That's it -- just a little circuit and resistor to keep the signal levels in safe limits for your pirate converter box. What I just read sounds very similar to what I remember:
TCI went to General Instrument (the cable box manufacturer), and said "Okay, if you wanted to pirate cable, how would you do it?"
General Instrument got hold of some of the "aftermarket" equipment, and reverse-engineered it.
(We're two R-E steps out, now... first the pirates were figuring out the scrambling and getting into "test mode," the second was General Instrument figuring out what differences there were between the 'official' systems and the aftermarket ones.)
General Instrument figures out a signal they can inject into the cable system that will not affect 'legal' boxes, but will overdrive sections of the aftermarket chips -- thus doing irreperable damage, and rendering the cable box inoperative.
TCI injects this signal into their system, and everyone who complains about dead cable receives a rather shocking bill. (If I remember news reports properly, it was $500 - $1000 and a promise to behave. It's been a while.)
Memory is a bit rusty, but that's pretty much how I remember it happening. I can't believe this old trick still works...
Slashdot Mirror
I was confused by that point as well. There is also this page -- the link is right there at the top -- that states:
- "Technically speaking, the eighth drop in Parnell's famous Pitch-Drop demonstration experiment "fell" at the end of November last year, while I was overseas. Unfortunately the high-tech webcam's digital memory also suffered a bout of amnesia at the crucial moment. That was not all, however. When Parnell set up the demonstration in 1927 he could not have foreseen that during the gestation years of the eighth drop the University would decide to air-condition the two large lecture theatres in whose foyer the pitch resides, thus reversing the drop's seasonal experiences. That drop became by far the largest in the series, and when the time arrived for it to fall there was insufficient depth to the bottom of the beaker below for it to suffer a complete break."
Seven? Eight? Seems even they don't have a handle on it.The two numbers are right next to each other no matter where on the keyboard you look. I can imagine someone mistyping it... it's not as if the page needs updating all that often. (Looks like the last update was 9 Apr.) Here's hoping they read /., notice this thread, and make the change. (Yeah, right.)
You didn't read any of those links, did you?
(Don't bother to answer, it's obvious.)
- From http://www.aatl.net/publications/contran.htm
- "The mechanics of blocked transmissions are easily understood. In general, it may involve simultaneous transmission from two aircraft or simultaneous transmission from an aircraft and ATC. These transmissions interfere with each other, "blocking" both signals. There is a widespread belief that such blocked transmissions would always be detected (i.e heterodyne heard by the pilot and/or ATC). An equally widespread belief, held by controllers, is that ATC transmissions are always heard. Neither is necessarily true. However, even if detected, it is often too late to do anything and aircrew and ATC are usually too busy managing events in progress."
- I tried to make it clear that -41.25 was the very top end of allowed emissions for UWB. When GPS frequencies are at stake, the limits are much lower.
Claiming employment by a corporation in a particular field does not magically correct wrong information. It actually makes me wonder more why you're bothering to argue wrong information so strongly in the face of evidence to the contrary. Attention to detail (and bothering to look up those details!) would help you. I have tried to show you, but you have refused to look.The person who has the mic keyed isn't going to hear anything, and thus won't know their transmission wasn't received. The whole point is to notice that a communications breakdown happened and correct it before something bad happens.
Read the slides at http://www.sss-mag.com/uwbslides.html -- that's the "first link" I referred to before.
When referring to GPS frequencies, the FCC limit for indoor & handheld outdoor UWB devices is -75 dBm/MHz. GPR, wall imaging, and medical imaging systems are limited to -65, and thru-wall imaging and surveilance systems can go all the way up to about -53 dBm/MHz -- but only law enforcement, fire, and rescue organizations get access to that equipment.
The IEEE Powerpoint presentation has some interesting information on noise floors -- you might want to read that.
I must note one thing, though... you'd make an excellent scare-monger. You've got the Star Trek-style technobabble down pat. Have you considered a position as a lobbyist? How about running for congress?
This is the end of this thread from my end, I've made my point. All the info is there for those who care to read it.
- "...the fact that the U.S. ATC relies on "dated" technology may be the reason it's so successful."
Oh God, thank you. I needed a laugh! "US ATC" and "reliable" in the same sentence, with a straight face even!To the regular person, I suppose ATC could be looked at as 'reliable' -- but go talk to a controller sometime; the people who have to present the aura of reliability when something fails. Ask him (or her) how often their radio breaks. Or how hard it is to get vacuum tubes for some of their equipment. Perhaps you could visit the vampires -- the people who sit in an almost completely dark room dealing with everything IFR (and VFR in controlled airspace). Everything is voice and paper -- it's a sobering sight. Yes, there is a lot of computerization, but the interaction goes
- Pilot (flight plan) -> computer -> piece of paper -> controller <-> pilot!
It's a wonder these people stay sane sometimes.(Note the heads on the arrows.)
Canada privatized their ATC system, and (to an outsider) it has worked quite well. Communications systems are much better. The controllers don't have to keep track of planes on slips of paper, they can actually interact with the computer. One has to consider, however, that Canada doesn't deal with nearly the same daily volume of aircraft that the United States does, so their successes may not scale the way we'd need.
I must admit that the last time I was in an ATC facility was before the whole Y2K thing, and a lot of money was spent to upgrade things for that particular scare. Perhaps things are better now, but ATC doesn't live on internet time -- so I doubt it.
I know exactly what I mean by "heterodyne detection." I refer to the capability of a circuit to detect when two transmitters attempt to operate on the same frequency simultaneously. The 1977 Tenerife airport crash of two 747s (KLM & Pan Am) is frequently used as an example of (1) a heterodyne happening (it was recorded on the cockpit tapes), and (2) the need for this feature so all parties are alerted to the event.
Geez, you couldn't even type "aviation radio heterodyne" into Google to see what I was talking about. Everything I've posted comes up on the first page!
- Advanced Aviation Technology Ltd. makes a device for this purpose,
their sales pitch (section 3)
describes the problem. (How nice of them.)
- Salon posted an article
about the problem on March 28th. Same example -- Tenerife airport.
Over 500 people died in that fireball, and we still haven't standardized a solution. It's been twenty-five-and-a-half years! That's enough time to come up with a lawyer-resistant solution!Not going to bother bashing lawyers here -- this is Slashdot, feelings on that subject are well known.
"Let me run the numbers for you on interference."
Um... no. Your numbers are way off the mark. Assumptions are dangerous, you have an internet connection, why didn't you use it? Google for "FCC UWB limits" -- the first link is a whole set of info on power levels and spectrum allocation. Digging a bit deeper, you'll find:
- "...For now, UWB communications devices will be restricted to intentional operation only
between 3.1 and 10.6 GHz; through-wall imaging and surveillance systems restricted between
1.99 and 10.6 GHz (and used only for law enforcement, fire and rescue, and other designated
organizations) and automotive radars restricted to frequencies above 24.075 GHz."
Further, since you seem particularly worried about interference with GPS, I point you to this PowerPoint presentation from IEEE, or Google's rather poor HTML translation of the same thing. (It loses the graphics) The point? UWB is specifically regulated to stay out of the GPS bands.Further, maximum output -- anywhere in the spectrum -- must be under limits set by part 15 (for now). That's -41.25 dBm/MHz.
I don't know if you'd even get to finish that sentence...
- "Stand back! I have a bluetooth..."
"Eewwww, get away! Heard of a toothbrush? When was the last time you used one??""Blue tooth, huh? You really ought to see a dentist about that..."
Another down side is that geeks talking about tech are going to be put in the same category as people making jokes about bombs, guns, and hijackings -- subject to summary arrest.
Okay, let me get this straight...
- FCC approves UWB devices for testing at power levels an order of magnitude less than is commonly believed to cause ANY interference,
- UWB devices have been tested, and found to interfere with the #1 topic guaranteed to scare large populations?
What device did they test? Where'd they get these things? How can I know they didn't just hook up a 30KV spark-gap transmitter and go "See??? Interference!" (Booga booga booga!!)AND
Oh, great. "UWB will cause a 747 to crash into the White House, curdle your milk, kidnap your virgin daughter and sell her to the Hells Angels, molest your wife, and defraud every company you've ever invested in!"
Great, sure. The airline industry (like any industry) hates to spend money unless it's absolutely necessary. Look at the current state of US air traffic control. (Yike!) Heck, look up the state of aviation radios, even! There's a simple little thing called "heterodyne detection" that isn't present! (People have died as a result!) Yes, there are fancy computers, and GPS, and "glass cockpits" -- but there are some extremely basic technologies of aviation that haven't changed in 50 years simply because nobody has said "That's dangerous and idiotic, we've had better tech for a generation! Do it right!!!"
On second thought... this is probably a good thing. It'll return air travel to its' proper place -- an enforced, several-hour vacation! Relax, look out the window, marvel at the world you live in. No phones, no computers, but lots of distractions. God forbid, you might even talk to your neighbor. (I wonder how many people even remember how to work with a pen and a piece of paper..?)
I like the last question, it has a good point!
- MT> You been quoted as stating, "man will always use his most advanced technology to amuse himself." Care to elaborate?
Most advanced tech used for amusement... yeah, that fits. Just off-the-cuff I can think of a bunch of examples:DC> Quotes are a funny thing - there are as many attributed to me that I didn't say as there are things I said many times that are easily forgotten. The best line I didn't say was, "It's a jungle in there!" referring to Pitfall! But the quote you mention has been referred to as "Crane's Law", and I firmly believe it.
(Snip the part about electric model airplanes)
- Gamers driving the high-end PC market
- Doom 3
- $400 GeForce/Radeon/Parhelia graphics cards
- Any sports car from Ferarri/Porsche/Mercedes/BMW/Audi/Acura/Lexus/you
r favoritebrandhere
- Insanely huge home theater installations
- Should I even point out that the porn industry was the first to release material using the advanced features of DVD? Or that they drove the adoption of videocassettes?
I'm sure other people can come up with even more examples.(For that matter, look at street racers putting Acura VTEC engines in their Honda Civics!)
- Starting testing...
Great. All the sleaze you want, but one of the premier search engines is off limits. Decline of civilization indeed -- perhaps the result will create an interesting test case for future anthropology and psych students.Stage one testing complete.
Stage two testing complete.
Testing complete for http://google.com. Result:
Reported as inaccessible in China
Oh thank God. I was reading a post by Tycho a couple hours ago and was curious enough to follow his link that went like this:
- Animatrix: Holy shit.
Pulled theFigures. I would find this just after watching Ghost in the Shell.
Do my eyes deceive me? I doubt it. WCPUID is noting 3998.24 MHz in that picture! (It's most of the way down the page, if you want to see it in context.)
Wow.
Bandwidth.
Pixel Depth.
Image Dimensions.
Bitch, bitch, bitch, bitch, bitch. To quote someone who dearly needs to be heeded in this case (Dennis Leary), "Shut the fuck up, NEXT!" I've heard enough crap, why don't we just call up Nikon and ask them for one of their explosive imaging cameras? If I remember my Guinness Book of World Records, that unit is a digital camera performing in the MILLIONS of frames per second! 12,000? Feh!
Gee, how about a simple Google search, even? Let's try that, shall we (since the Guinness world record site SUCKS!):
- "Fastest Camera" search
- "Ultrahigh-speed Imaging" search
.PDF in that first hit -- it's from "The Industrial Physicist", and has some nice info on a "gated still-video camera." A quote:
Another point I quickly found is that high speed (million-plus FPS) imagery has been around since the late 80s. Most of it's digital. (Imagine that.) You can thank the US military for funding that.First 3 links are about the same camera! A half-million dollars, 200 million frames per second.
Grab the
- "Multisensor, ultrahigh-speed electronic
imaging systems (such as that shown in Figure
1) are capable of recording sequences of
discrete images at frame rates of up to 100
million pictures per second. They incorporate
compact, intensified charge coupled
device (CCD) modules that exhibit virtually
no geometric distortion or intensity variation
and provide the user with digital images that can be analyzed using a personal computer."
Oh, one other thing: The article is from December 1997 when Pentium IIs were hot stuff, and you counted yourself lucky to have 64 MB of RAM and a 9.1 GB F/W SCSI-2 hard drive!IA-64 Itanium perhaps? However, looking at Intel's specs I don't see 866 listed as an available clock speed. They list the original Itanium at 733 and 800 MHz, and Itanium 2 at 900 MHz and 1 GHz.
I would have thought that IBM would plug their own hardware whenever possible -- the T221 display is certainly phenomenal, and they provide a link so you could buy one of those... It has me wondering how I can come up with $8400 to get one. (Heck, when those things came out, they were $20,000! Ah, progress.)
So, this leaves us to wonder... no mention of processors, "low" clock speed -- compared to what we're used to seeing -- something new from AMD? IBM pissed off at Intel? Some new massively parallel top secret silicon from IBM?
Watch... it'll turn out to be Pentium IIIs -- they call 'em "workstations," so they might have recovered them from some other project. (Or all the engineers got new workstations and wondered what cool project they could do with their old ones... Q3A at 3840x2400? What the heck!) What's the limiting factor in this case, processor power or network bandwidth?
I set up a Hotmail account on Sep 10, 2001. I needed to get a couple small files for a job, and since I had a cable modem I didn't have any internet access unless I was home. (Dial-up is so much more convenient in that regard...) Until that point, it was a small point of pride that I had not succumbed to Passport and all its' evil empire connotations. (So much for that...)
We soon realized there were more than a couple small files missing, so they FedEx'd a CD from Massachusetts to South Carolina. While I waited for the truck, I was reading /. -- and learned right here of the terrorist attacks. I ended up staring at CNN for an hour before the package came and I went to work.
Not a very auspicious start...
That hotmail account was spam-free for a month or so... I never used it other than to give the address to one person. I know for an absolute fact she didn't give it out or sell it or whatnot.
Let's see now... I haven't checked it in 2 days, so I wonder how much crap is in there?
- 73 Messages -- all spam, of course
- 362 KB
I don't know why I don't just let the account expire... morbid curiosity, perhaps?Well, it's good to know that printer sucks. I'd noticed them, but never really considered one. My reaction to seeing one was more of "Gee, would you look at that. Color laser for $1000. (I wonder what corners they had to cut?)" The features are moderately impressive, but (no surprise, really) they don't have 'em plugged in so you can get a demo page.
Personally, I'd love to have an HP 8550 (11x17, 24 PPM, ~$7000), but I'll have to wait until (1) they hit the used market, or (2) I win the lottery.
HP has a bunch of nice color lasers, and don't forget Xerox -- they've been doing the toner-on-paper thing for longer than I've been around. I imagine they have a few nice products as well.
The 2-to-3 dollar figure for 20 pages of printing isn't referring to the cost of paper. It refers to the cost of the consumables that are going on the paper. 10 cents a page, 20 pages... bang. $2. That's for some of the larger-capacity inkjets, too. For the (smaller | cheaper) printers, especially with HP's notorious "economy" refills (read: "screw you, we're selling you a printer with half-empty cartridges"), the cost can be as high as 15/page just for ink. 15 X 20 pages = $3.
"Lasers may give better quality, but you'll pay for it."
You get what you pay for. Yes, the cost of a new printer is higher. (Buy a used one, I did!) Yes, the cost to replace the toner cartridges is psychologically formidable. However, that $94 high-capacity cartridge for my LaserJet 4+ will last me for years, and is rated for (max) 8800 pages! (If I manage to get only half that many, that's still 2.1/page -- 4 to 5 times less than an inkjet!) Also, at 20 pages a week it will take you 4.2 years (!!!) to print 4400 pages.
With penny-a-page paper you get very nice results from a laser printer. Run the same stuff through an inkjet and you will get some bleeding. Not a lot, but it's there. Your photo-quality paper cost you 26.6 per page on sale, and it's required if you want your maximum resolution. Ouch.
Last thing: What happens when you need to print résumés? High-quality résumé paper contains cotton rag. I prefer one paper that's 75% rag, and it bleeds noticably when run through an inkjet. (Yes, I know the alternative -- find someone with a laser or go to Kinko's... but it's nice to have your own.)
20 pages a week? That's a resonably substansial amount of printing.
- In color, an inkjet will cost you (rough estimate) $2 to $3/week at that rate. That's not taking the cost of special paper into account. (Ask yourself if you need color -- what are you going to use it for?)
- At the same rate, a used LaserJet will cost you roughly 50 for the same number of pages.
- Laser printers produce a lot better output on cheap paper. Inkjets sometimes require paper that costs more than blank CD-Rs! ($1.00/sheet for photo quality paper!)
There certainly are reasons for an inkjet, too. You can't beat the entry price, but it's a Gillette business model -- lose money on the razors (printer), make (lots!) of money on the blades (ink). I recently heard tell a rumor about a disposable (recyclable?) inkjet -- the whole printer was cheaper than 2 replacement cartridges! (Ouch!)Really important point:
If you really need color, an inkjet is hard to beat.
- HP Inkjet printers can "mix" ink to create better-blended colors on a page. (I don't think they're alone in this capability, either.) HP calls it "Color Layering" -- it works because injets dyes and pigments aren't completely opaque, where laserprinter toner is.
- Color laser printers are limited to placing 4 different colors of toner next to each other and letting your eye perceive something that's not really there. Sure, you could stack pixels just like an inkjet, but instead of blending colors, you'd just see the one on top (best case), or a melted brown smear (worst case).
- Other side of the coin: Dyes fade. Pigments (for the most part) don't. This is why you can still dig out 20-year-old laserjet-printed material and it's perfectly readable. Print out a picture of your cat on an inkjet, leave it tacked up in your cube, and print out a new one -- same printer, same file -- a year later. You'll notice the fading.
Okay, last point: The Minolta (QMS) Magicolor 2200 color laser. Office Depot sells 'em for $999. Listed on Pricewatch (refurbished) for just shy of $800. 1200 x 600 dpi, 20 PPM B&W, 5 PPM Color. Even comes Ethernet-ready. Yes, it's expensive, but it seems like people drop that much on (new | upgrade) parts for their computer every 6 months.There are some inkjets moving to pigment-based instead of dye-based inks. (It's a premium expense, though.) The output from these is supposed to be colorfast for much longer periods, but I haven't seen this first-hand.
There is a computer recycling / used computer store in Seattle called RePC. They buy stuff from companies (or charge 'em to haul the crap away) dust it off, and then sell it.
While browsing through their printers, I found a HP 5si/MX with the printer test page taped to the top... the page count was over 500,000. When I remarked on its' long and presumably rough life, the reply was "Oh, that's a young one! They usually don't wear out until about 2 million pages."
DAMN.
I had the misfortune to have to install some of those monsters when they were new... they came in on a 1/4-size oak pallet, and had to be moved by (1) a pallet jack, or (2) two burly men or three IT geeks. (They weigh well over 300 pounds.)
Personally, I have a LaserJet 4+ upgraded to 16MB RAM, and a IIIP with 5MB. They've served me for... good Lord, almost 5 and 8 years, respectively! I bought the 4+ used, and I've never had to replace the toner cartridge... so for 5 years of use it has cost me $150. (I think that's what I paid for it...)
The only desire to upgrade that I have experienced is when I found HP's LaserJet 8550 series -- color, prints on 11x17 paper. The 8000 series is the replacement for the 5si, so these things put out something on the order of 25 pages/minute B&W, and perhaps 1/4 that when using color. The estimated cost per page? About 3 cents, not including the purchase price of the machine.
As for me, I'll be looking for a used one. (Probably about 3 years from now.)
- "Electricity is metered. Broadband is not (yet)."
I must disagree. I will try to do so as respectfully as possible.- When I signed up for 768/128 ADSL, the agreement specifically stated "unmetered transfers." While I was specifically prohibited from reselling the service, I could (and did!) give away access. (I only noticed one other person use my wireless -- perhaps there were more, but I only actually "saw" one.)
- Verizon (who was NOT my ISP) certainly didn't give a hoot about how much data crossed the physical line.
- The amount of data that can be pulled through a 768-Kbit DSL line is finite. If your ISP charges you what it will cost them to route that much data, you aren't likely to hear complaints if you fill your pipe. (Though JWZ did, and he was using Covad at the time.) Worst case in my situation -- 31-day month with 100% usage 24/7 -- works out to ~280 Gigabytes in a month. MAX. In a conversation with one of the Blarg techs, I learned it costs ~$110/month to route 1 Mbit/sec through a Tier-1 US backbone. That's not including physical circuit fees.
- The electricity argument is valid beyond the metering issue as well -- circuits (and transformers) have limits. If you provide one 15-amp circuit there is no danger of someone running their whole house off it, or setting up an electric-arc smelting operation (well, one of any size, anyway...) A flat-rate charge based on (120v X 15A)/1000 X 744 (hours in a 31-day month) X $0.10 (cost per KW/hour) means $134 will completely cover unmetered use of that 15-amp circuit.
Unfortunately, I had to move. Where I live now is not DSL capable, otherwise I'd still be using Blarg. The cable modem provider doesn't care about NAT (or servers to a limited extent), but they don't want "free internet" out there "on their dime."Now, about that "metered" part...
Rather interesting, really... it seems the DSL providers have a more enlightened view of this issue than the cable providers. It shows the difference in culture and levels of greed. Also, my cable provider charges $15/GB for every GB (or fraction) over 10 GB/month. If I wanted to move as much data over cable as I could have on my DSL, my monthly cable bill would be ~$4100!!
Perhaps prices need to rise somewhat for "free wireless" to be ignored by all ISPs, but unlimited internet access is most definitly feasible.
Years ago -- and I mean something on the order of a decade -- I remember the famous racing-seat manufacturer Recaro offering an office chair. It was simply one of their less aggressive (read: touring instead of racing) seats attached to an office chair base. There was even a model that included power adjustments and bolted a small 12v battery to the frame.
Now, all I can find is this sad example. ~$1000 for fabric upholstery, ~$1500 for leather... but that's just one site I found on a Google search.
It's a shame the site is buried under the load, I'd like to see that chair. I've had the same idea for some time... I used to own a VW Corrado (which came with Recaro seats), and I often thought about mounting one of those on a swivel base for non-car use. That thing was comfy! However, looking at the prices for a new Recaro, I think I'll just search ebay for an Aeron.
Good show, I'd forgotten about all the different archives out there. I noticed that Google didn't have a cache of it, and stopped there.
Looking at the page, I note they weren't using the IndyCam, but the O2Cam.
I think I remember the lava lamps being backlit, that would make for a relatively easy transparent/opaque determination. The O2Cam is a color system, so you use what amount of which color is covering what percentage of which section of the image... there are a lot of ways to get your "digital output of the image" from which the calculations start.
Interestingly, a 921,600-byte image works out to 640 by 480 at 24-bit color. Reading further, it looks like that was exactly what they were doing -- blobs of color in various places, never the same twice. Neat idea, available (at the time) as a "Professional Service." I wonder if they still offer it... I'm sure they would, for enough money.
The only reference to Lavarand I could find at SGI's site, by the way, was an entry in a list of their trademarks.
Shocked! Yes, shocked and dismayed I am to note that the SGI lava-lamp random number generator has not been mentioned! Unfortunately, it seems to be gone. It's too bad, really... it was a VERY cool combination of the physical world and computers.
http://lavarand.sgi.com used to tell you about an apparatus that SGI's researchers had set up to generate "truly random" numbers. It worked by using several (about 6?) lava lamps clamped in laboratory stands and placed very close together. A SGI camera (an IndyCam, IIRC) was pointed at the slowly roiling liquids, and they generated random numbers by the percentage of the frame that was occluded. (Transparent vs. opaque liquid)
Or something like that. It's been years since I looked at it, and it's gone now. Damn.
I think I may have found what austad was referring to as a "Servicat." I found references to a "Savannah" -- a cross of an African Serval and a domestic cat. (I suppose you could request a Serval / Bengal mix from a breeder.)
This mix isn't quite accepted by the hoity-toity crowd as a "breed" yet, though several sites referred to an "experimental breed" listing.
Here are some of the facts and claims I found about the Savannah cat:
- Cost: Kittens seem to be $500 - $2000, depending on gender and whether or not you have them (spayed | neutered).
- Size: Expected maximum is about 25 pounds (12 kg). Claimed to be the largest domestic* breed.
- Claim: More intelligent than "standard" domestic cats (more likely to get into things).
- Claim: Less afraid of (or not afraid at all of) water.
- One site referred to them as "dog-like" -- coming when you call their name, walking on a leash... weird things that no self-respecting cat would ever be caught doing.
As for my wife and I, we're quite happy with our two domestic shorthair moggies -- born to a feral cat outside a previous apartment, they're two true products of natural selection. Strong, lean, healthy, active... what I imagine God intended when creating "cat." We found them in a burrow under the concrete slab of our patio, and adopted them soon after. Yes, taming them took some time -- about a month -- but the only cost has been vet bills, food, sanitation, and more cat toys than I'd like to admit. It's been 5 years now, and there's no question -- we'd certainly do it again.* (I suppose that would be in the legal sense, as in "No, officer, it's not an exotic, wild animal; it's just my moggy (mutt) cat.")
To the original author of this Ask Slashdot: I strongly urge anyone looking for a unique pet to just spend some time in your local animal shelter -- the residents there would love 30 minutes of attention, even if you can't give them a home. Who knows... you might even find yourself getting attached to one of 'em. Unique isn't just breed or species... it can be attitude or personality as well!
Good grief!
I can't believe how difficult it can be to find an older article around this place!
- Slashdot -- June 2, 2001. Title: "Duct Tape"
- I remember posting another comment about David Hahn at a much later date, (and asking Pathwalker if he had any recent info) but I can't seem to find it! (Dammit.)
Slashdot's robots.txt file is comprehensively restrictive, so if I feed Google "David Hahn site:slashdot.org", I get nothing.Would you please release (every few months or perhaps annually) a complete archive of Slashdot on CD or DVD? I imagine a simple .tar of the database would be sufficient, as most of your users would be quite capable of handling (and searching) that format. Personally, I think raw articles (no slashboxes, sidebars, etc...) in HTML format would be very useful.
Since CD/DVD production is relatively inexpensive, this could potentially be a non-trivial source of revenue for /.
Alternatively, perhaps Google could be convinced to donate one of their search appliances? Since many of us are quite proficient and familiar with Google's operation, it would make searching our collective memory that much easier.
Further, if a donation from Google is not possible, there are likely many of us who would be willing to donate to a search appliance fund.
Please, PLEASE consider these (and any other!) options to improve Slashdot searching.
Sincerely,
Raetsel.
I have never heard of any equipment (beyond 'pirate' ICs) that has been damaged by the "magic bullet" signal.
There has been a lot of "what if..?" talk, but I cannot recall any actual, documented damage.
(Then again, I haven't searched Google on this topic, so I could be very wrong. You have been warned.)
This is analog cable they are talking about here. Calling it "code" makes it sound much more complicated than it actually is. Not that it could harm a VCR (or TIVO) anyway...
I remember the last time the "magic bullet" issue came up. This was several years ago, and it was TCI (the company AT&T bought out) doing it, IIRC.
Shortly after news of the coup hit the press, I started hearing about "magic bullet filters." They were sold under various names (both vague and unabashedly direct!), and were a shockingly simple notch filter.
That's it -- just a little circuit and resistor to keep the signal levels in safe limits for your pirate converter box. What I just read sounds very similar to what I remember:
- TCI went to General Instrument (the cable box manufacturer), and said "Okay, if you wanted to pirate cable, how would you do it?"
- General Instrument got hold of some of the "aftermarket" equipment, and reverse-engineered it.
- General Instrument figures out a signal they can inject into the cable system that will not affect 'legal' boxes, but will overdrive sections of the aftermarket chips -- thus doing irreperable damage, and rendering the cable box inoperative.
- TCI injects this signal into their system, and everyone who complains about dead cable receives a rather shocking bill. (If I remember news reports properly, it was $500 - $1000 and a promise to behave. It's been a while.)
Memory is a bit rusty, but that's pretty much how I remember it happening. I can't believe this old trick still works...(We're two R-E steps out, now... first the pirates were figuring out the scrambling and getting into "test mode," the second was General Instrument figuring out what differences there were between the 'official' systems and the aftermarket ones.)