Again, you're talking about a "we" that is not representative of "WE". The Audrey was never intended to be carried around, to try and compare it with a web-pad is like trying to compare a palm pilot to a kiosk.
You can't easily to both because there are costs involved. Manufacturers don't want to dump millions into R&D just to "see what happens", especially with the profit-driven investors of today.
The problem is that everybody has their own idea of what makes a good IA. What you want is not what I want is not what they want, etc.
To say that you'll "build a damn server in my basement" kinda shows that you're not looking at this is the right perspective. Audrey came in colors like "linen" and "blueberry", to say that it wasn't targeted to the "...build a damn server in my basement crowd" would be an understatement:)
Audrey was meant to be used by people that were afraid of too many computers, or didn't realize that you could take a $300PC and a $600 14" LCD monitor and do so mcuh more for just a few more dollars.
I think that Audrey could have survived, but it needed a backend in the home. But this backend needed to be more-or-less hands off to the homeowner. The backend had to be more like a magic black box o' technology. The really sad part is that the black box is just around the corner, but Audrey won't be here to enjoy it.
Considering that we're talking about pulling fiber in sewers, it seems that this rat: Rattie would be a more appropriate method. However, this story is from '97, and considering the average life span of a rodent, Rattie may be pushing up daisies now.
But that definitely does not give you the right to take things from inside the house (or computer system),
In the house, if there is a VCR and I take it, then the original owner has lost all use of it. What if I came in and *cloned* the VCR, so the original owner still had his fully functional unit, but now I jad one just like it?
If you need to temporarily unlock your backdoor, specifiy a password, even if it's insanely simple.
All in all, the door is a bad argument. The physical door itself is a symbol in today's society of a barrier. People are taught to knock and *request* permission, not just merely *open* the door, unless there is a "Come on in" type of sign.
With file sharing you have specifically left the door open, and hung out a come on in sign.
Unless you have an access control system for the door, you cannot leave it unlocked for specific people, so you have to leave it unlocked for everyone.
With file sharing, you can specificy a password, and different users, and thus can allow in only the people you *want* to come in. Specifying "full access" means just that. If you're too lazy to lock it down properly, so be it.
I've got to find the addresses of the people who made this software, and see if they ever leave thier doors unlocked.
Leaving a door *unlocked* is not inviting unwanted guests. If a door is closed, then you should assume that you are not encouraged to enter, unless a sign is present like "Come In, We're Open!". You would be expected to *knock* first (ie: ask permission), and then go away if no one answers.
By sharing a file/drive/folder/device the user has completed a set of actions the secifially makes the items available to The World. You *could* use Microsoft's pathetic Network Neighborhood tool to browse for shares, or you could use a 3rd party tool to browse for shares. Either way, you are browsing items that the user has *specifically* made availble for public consumption.
The legal morons have this quote in the article:
"The person who has, through no knowledge of his own, left file sharing 'on' with no protection,
that is the electronic equivalent of leaving your door unlocked," says Rasch. "You can't with
any degree of certainly say it is an invitation to enter... Therefore when you enter through an
open file share, that's likely an unauthorized access."
I don't think this would hold up in court. Leaving your door unlocked requires NO action on the users part, thus it can be done accidentally or absent-mindedly. However, by default there are no public shares when you install Windoze. The user has to specifically share a drive, device, or folder. They cannot claim "whoops, I didn't know it was shared" because the only way for it to get shared is to perform the proper action(s).
If I come along and discover a public share, I can only assume that the person *meant* to share it. I would not ask them for permission to use it, or browse the files, because they have *already* granted that priveledge to me and the world.
The lawyers seem to always try to re-word everything so that things are selectively illeagal or wrong. Personally, I'm getting tired of the bullshit with the lawyers in America, but that is another topic.
What remains to be seen is: who is liable for the (alleged) illeagal material on one of the public shares? Is the user reasonably expected to make sure the material is legal?
While this is a neat excercise from a coding perspective, would anyone be able to tell the difference between the chart, and a random bunch of lines/circles/squares/colors?
Could be... My bet says that it's a Solution looking for a Problem for most instances. The form factor is too bulky, IMO. You couldn't carry 4 or 5 of these things without looking like you had a pocket full of marbles:) Also, because of the way people think of USB, they're going to want to use several of these at once. One will have a PGP key, another will be for MP3s and another for doco, work files, etc. But it will be hard to have them all plugged in at once, you'll need more external equipment (USB hubs, etc) that will soon negate any savings or flexibility the product offers. At the very least, they should have ones that are stackable, so you could have this big cluster of USB "Keys" with all your crypto keys, doco, music, pr0n, etc on one USB port:)
This thing seems cool at first, but I think it's overrated. It won't erplace a floppy because it's not bootable, and it's not cheap enough to lose/loan/leave. 8MB isn't really all that much, but you can get ones up to 64MB (of course they'll set you back $200). They don't seem to be supported in linux yet, and the device isn't really _that_ small. My keyring already has too much crap, RF keytag for the house, Remote for the truck, ibutton, and keys.
If you actually put it on your keyring, you have to leave your keys hanging out of the computer. Bad Idea. If you don't put it on your keyring, you'll likely lose it, or someone will "liberate" the unit from your PC/laptop when you're not looking.
Personally, I'm often on a corporate LAN. If I want 8MB of removable media, I'll just ftp it to my webserver where I can access from anywhere.
USB was held up because it was too OS dependant, and Microsoft didn't release good drivers until Windows '98. Back in '95/96 there were already USB devices ready and waiting for drivers.
IEEE1394 is and was in use in commercial A/V equipment before it came down to the end-user level, so it had a chance to build an installed base, but most people just weren't aware of this.
USB and '1394 also solved different problems, they were ways to move lots of data over a copper wire, cheaply and effectively. There *was* no other easy solution before they came along.
Bluetooth isn't solving any problems that aren't already solved by 802.11b. Bluetooth isn't cheaper, it isn't faster, it isn't more secure, it doesn't have a better featureset. Bluetooth is just using short-range RF in a different way. 802.11b cards could easily do what bluetooth claims to do, and they could do it today. With a bit o' engineering the 802.11b cards also have a very low power subchannel, so that they would only talk to devices very close to themselves. By using 802.11b to replace Bluetooth, current RF-to-Ethernet bridges could also enable your cellphone to surf the 'net (or make IP calls) for free inside of a building, by gatewaying to the LAN, etc, etc, etc.
We really only need 1 multipurpose RF network, and my bet says that it ain't gonna be Bluetooth.
$75? Yeah, sure. You can always pay too much for a ticket, but typically you can get tickets in the $20-$30 range. If you're paying for the best tickets, then shut up about the T-shirt prices.
Anyway, the venue and promotor get a portion of the T-Shirt sales as well.
You *can* take it way, stop paying for $75 tickets and $40 t-shirts to start.
For the most part, the musicians have no say in the price of the disc, and only get a very small portion of that $20 price. That portion is then divided up amongst the band memebers.
Now, all this eqipment is going to become obsolete in the next 4 years?
Out of curiosity, what makes you think that just because you have a Shitload of equipment that it can't or won't become obsolete?
The sad truth is that we, as consumers, really have very little control of what is foisted upon us by Hollywierd, with the assistance of our wonderful governmet. (yes, I know not everyone is in the US).
While I don't think that the storyline will play out exactly as it's written, I *do* belive that if we all just sit by and laugh at the concept it *will* come around and bite us in the ass.
Bluetooth has been hyped for over 2 years now. There are *101* products listed there. The bulk of them are chipsets and "development" stuff, and many of the products listed there are variations of the same product or chipset from the same company. Even if you expand the search you still get a ratio of ~80% "develop tools/chipsets/IP stacks", ~10% real stuff (ooooh, a Bluetooth cellphone headset) and ~10% vapor products, or manufacturers like Sony listing 28 variations of the same laptop that (supposedly) has Bluetooth. Great, you can use the Bluetooth headset to talk to your overpriced Vaio laptop.
There are very few real true things that you're going to find on the shelves of BestBuy/CompUSA/Frys, etc.
So what does this article *really* tell us?
Wifi network cards are sending data through the air, and we already know that NOTHING is ever really all that secure, especially when you're trying to keep overheard/processing power required minimal.
SO, it would stand to reason that by deploying Wifi you are (potentially) saving money on wiring/setup, enabling users to move around more freely, and at the same time subjecting yourself to more security risks.
This should be elementary to just about any halfway decent admin, but considering that it's posted on Zdnet, it's not really targeted to admins, but to end users, managers, and others not-all-that-hip:)
What do you think was used before linux? Linux is simply *not* the only thing out there that scales down well enough... Devices like this existed YEARS ago, before linux was a common word, and before it was robust enough to be used in an application like this. As for the profit margin, with this device being roughly 2x the cost of it's competitors, I don't think they're doing much in the way of cost-cutting.
I would think that you could only configure it from the inside, and not from the 56K dial-up side, so the only real threat is internal. Sure, there *may* be things that could be exploited.
It's not a far-fetched idea, I just think that the company that designed this was merely trying to jump on the Linux and dial-up router bandwagon, and wasn't really trying to do anything ground-breaking.
Intel still makes i386's (last I heard). They're still very popular in SBC's, I have a couple from JK Micro that I've been toying with for a while. Tern is another (of many) i386 SBC vendors.
In my experience, the competitive devices run an embedded OS, which is not linux. Modem, dial-up and Ethernet chipsets have been around for a long time now. This is probably a 4 chip device (not counting a bit of "glue" chips, etc), including the uProcessor. Running linux on a box like this is like putting a V8 engine in a Geo Metreo, then of course limiting it to 25MPH. My guess is that this comapny used linux to get press releases, and mentions on linux-fan sites (seems like they were successful;)
I don't think that's it's meant for a "high-security" or industrial strength network, so the added overhead of SSH isn't really required. Afterall, if you've only got a 56K connection to deal with in the first place, what's the chances that some uber-hacker is going to be on your (4 port) network?? Most end-users are familiar with WWW, the "power users" can use telnet, but (IIRC) Windoze doesn't even come with an SSH client, and their target audience has probably never heard of SSH anyway.
Slashdot Mirror
You can't easily to both because there are costs involved. Manufacturers don't want to dump millions into R&D just to "see what happens", especially with the profit-driven investors of today.
To say that you'll "build a damn server in my basement" kinda shows that you're not looking at this is the right perspective. Audrey came in colors like "linen" and "blueberry", to say that it wasn't targeted to the "...build a damn server in my basement crowd" would be an understatement
Audrey was meant to be used by people that were afraid of too many computers, or didn't realize that you could take a $300PC and a $600 14" LCD monitor and do so mcuh more for just a few more dollars.
I think that Audrey could have survived, but it needed a backend in the home. But this backend needed to be more-or-less hands off to the homeowner. The backend had to be more like a magic black box o' technology. The really sad part is that the black box is just around the corner, but Audrey won't be here to enjoy it.
In the house, if there is a VCR and I take it, then the original owner has lost all use of it. What if I came in and *cloned* the VCR, so the original owner still had his fully functional unit, but now I jad one just like it?
If you need to temporarily unlock your backdoor, specifiy a password, even if it's insanely simple.
With file sharing you have specifically left the door open, and hung out a come on in sign.
Unless you have an access control system for the door, you cannot leave it unlocked for specific people, so you have to leave it unlocked for everyone.
With file sharing, you can specificy a password, and different users, and thus can allow in only the people you *want* to come in. Specifying "full access" means just that. If you're too lazy to lock it down properly, so be it.
Leaving a door *unlocked* is not inviting unwanted guests. If a door is closed, then you should assume that you are not encouraged to enter, unless a sign is present like "Come In, We're Open!". You would be expected to *knock* first (ie: ask permission), and then go away if no one answers.
By sharing a file/drive/folder/device the user has completed a set of actions the secifially makes the items available to The World. You *could* use Microsoft's pathetic Network Neighborhood tool to browse for shares, or you could use a 3rd party tool to browse for shares. Either way, you are browsing items that the user has *specifically* made availble for public consumption.
I don't think this would hold up in court. Leaving your door unlocked requires NO action on the users part, thus it can be done accidentally or absent-mindedly. However, by default there are no public shares when you install Windoze. The user has to specifically share a drive, device, or folder. They cannot claim "whoops, I didn't know it was shared" because the only way for it to get shared is to perform the proper action(s).
If I come along and discover a public share, I can only assume that the person *meant* to share it. I would not ask them for permission to use it, or browse the files, because they have *already* granted that priveledge to me and the world.
The lawyers seem to always try to re-word everything so that things are selectively illeagal or wrong. Personally, I'm getting tired of the bullshit with the lawyers in America, but that is another topic.
What remains to be seen is: who is liable for the (alleged) illeagal material on one of the public shares? Is the user reasonably expected to make sure the material is legal?
I dunno, the image just strikes me as sort of...
Yes, it will. I've found that the disc has to be properly finalized in order for it to work reliably.
Could be... My bet says that it's a Solution looking for a Problem for most instances. The form factor is too bulky, IMO. You couldn't carry 4 or 5 of these things without looking like you had a pocket full of marbles :) Also, because of the way people think of USB, they're going to want to use several of these at once. One will have a PGP key, another will be for MP3s and another for doco, work files, etc. But it will be hard to have them all plugged in at once, you'll need more external equipment (USB hubs, etc) that will soon negate any savings or flexibility the product offers. At the very least, they should have ones that are stackable, so you could have this big cluster of USB "Keys" with all your crypto keys, doco, music, pr0n, etc on one USB port :)
If you actually put it on your keyring, you have to leave your keys hanging out of the computer. Bad Idea. If you don't put it on your keyring, you'll likely lose it, or someone will "liberate" the unit from your PC/laptop when you're not looking.
Personally, I'm often on a corporate LAN. If I want 8MB of removable media, I'll just ftp it to my webserver where I can access from anywhere.
IEEE1394 is and was in use in commercial A/V equipment before it came down to the end-user level, so it had a chance to build an installed base, but most people just weren't aware of this.
USB and '1394 also solved different problems, they were ways to move lots of data over a copper wire, cheaply and effectively. There *was* no other easy solution before they came along.
Bluetooth isn't solving any problems that aren't already solved by 802.11b. Bluetooth isn't cheaper, it isn't faster, it isn't more secure, it doesn't have a better featureset. Bluetooth is just using short-range RF in a different way. 802.11b cards could easily do what bluetooth claims to do, and they could do it today. With a bit o' engineering the 802.11b cards also have a very low power subchannel, so that they would only talk to devices very close to themselves. By using 802.11b to replace Bluetooth, current RF-to-Ethernet bridges could also enable your cellphone to surf the 'net (or make IP calls) for free inside of a building, by gatewaying to the LAN, etc, etc, etc.
We really only need 1 multipurpose RF network, and my bet says that it ain't gonna be Bluetooth.
Anyway, the venue and promotor get a portion of the T-Shirt sales as well.
You *can* take it way, stop paying for $75 tickets and $40 t-shirts to start.
For the most part, the musicians have no say in the price of the disc, and only get a very small portion of that $20 price. That portion is then divided up amongst the band memebers.
This comment should thus be moderated as "+1, Informative" :)
Out of curiosity, what makes you think that just because you have a Shitload of equipment that it can't or won't become obsolete?
The sad truth is that we, as consumers, really have very little control of what is foisted upon us by Hollywierd, with the assistance of our wonderful governmet. (yes, I know not everyone is in the US).
While I don't think that the storyline will play out exactly as it's written, I *do* belive that if we all just sit by and laugh at the concept it *will* come around and bite us in the ass.
This sounds like the audio version of: http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
Bluetooth has been hyped for over 2 years now. There are *101* products listed there. The bulk of them are chipsets and "development" stuff, and many of the products listed there are variations of the same product or chipset from the same company. Even if you expand the search you still get a ratio of ~80% "develop tools/chipsets/IP stacks", ~10% real stuff (ooooh, a Bluetooth cellphone headset) and ~10% vapor products, or manufacturers like Sony listing 28 variations of the same laptop that (supposedly) has Bluetooth. Great, you can use the Bluetooth headset to talk to your overpriced Vaio laptop. There are very few real true things that you're going to find on the shelves of BestBuy/CompUSA/Frys, etc.
Bluetooth is vaporware. It's not going to happen.
Wifi network cards are sending data through the air, and we already know that NOTHING is ever really all that secure, especially when you're trying to keep overheard/processing power required minimal.
SO, it would stand to reason that by deploying Wifi you are (potentially) saving money on wiring/setup, enabling users to move around more freely, and at the same time subjecting yourself to more security risks.
This should be elementary to just about any halfway decent admin, but considering that it's posted on Zdnet, it's not really targeted to admins, but to end users, managers, and others not-all-that-hip :)
What do you think was used before linux? Linux is simply *not* the only thing out there that scales down well enough... Devices like this existed YEARS ago, before linux was a common word, and before it was robust enough to be used in an application like this. As for the profit margin, with this device being roughly 2x the cost of it's competitors, I don't think they're doing much in the way of cost-cutting.
It's not a far-fetched idea, I just think that the company that designed this was merely trying to jump on the Linux and dial-up router bandwagon, and wasn't really trying to do anything ground-breaking.
Intel still makes i386's (last I heard). They're still very popular in SBC's, I have a couple from JK Micro that I've been toying with for a while. Tern is another (of many) i386 SBC vendors.
In my experience, the competitive devices run an embedded OS, which is not linux. Modem, dial-up and Ethernet chipsets have been around for a long time now. This is probably a 4 chip device (not counting a bit of "glue" chips, etc), including the uProcessor. Running linux on a box like this is like putting a V8 engine in a Geo Metreo, then of course limiting it to 25MPH. My guess is that this comapny used linux to get press releases, and mentions on linux-fan sites (seems like they were successful ;)
I don't think that's it's meant for a "high-security" or industrial strength network, so the added overhead of SSH isn't really required. Afterall, if you've only got a 56K connection to deal with in the first place, what's the chances that some uber-hacker is going to be on your (4 port) network?? Most end-users are familiar with WWW, the "power users" can use telnet, but (IIRC) Windoze doesn't even come with an SSH client, and their target audience has probably never heard of SSH anyway.