I can remember some interesting conversations with Emerson Tan, who used to knock up HERF guns with microwave magnatrons. I imagine his plans are still on the web somewhere.
There are effective RF jammers available for quite cheap cost these days. I can pick up GSM jammers for about £25, I could make one for less although the time involved would be costly.
If we were to get really clever we could use one that gives a random response. Its a torch, a plane, panties or whatever.
Yes, although the regulation has always been a problem in the US, too many fingers in the pie. The GHz auctions in the UK were an example of a myopic although correct way of doing it.
Too right. It's only when people lose the ability to remove these things that they become a problem.
Cumulatively it could be a problem though, look what happened in 1930's Germany. These things are insidious as opposed to blatant.
All mobile phones have ESN and SIM numbers so they are pretty identifiable. In Europe the GSM code to see the ESN is *#06 .
Pagers have always been incredibly easy to listen too, POCSAG, FLEX and all of the other standards are not much better than the telegram. I have seen people transmit passwords and pin-numbers on local (private - and I had permission to listen) pager networks.
As for your mobile company. If someone turns up with a badge are they going to keep your details secret and/or give them access to the network proper?
If theoretically we could transport a 1960s radical to the current time and showed them a printer and a basic word processor they would be amazed.
It constantly amazes me how few radical and pseudoradical mags are available. Or maybe it is that we are constantly bombarded and these magazines have become cliched.
Anyone remember Phrack or MED's e-zines? Used to get loads on my BBS. Don't seem to get as many on the internet now, at leas none with the same quality. Either that or there are so many that I don't know where to start.
A million voices calling out at once!
Point been that all technology can become cliched, and we maybe haven't found the best way to use it yet!
How's about we start gearing them up to kill or co-exist with something biological, maybe robots using horseshit as fuel, that'd be a natural environment.
I find the light interesting because it's something available in our natural environment, it'd be cool if the robots could use more of our natural environment to survive.
Survivalist robots! Let them loose in the woods and six years later they are talking about toppling the fedral government. Give them a Leatherman and in six generations they'd build a city.
Whilst.NET as a concept may be wonderfull, if the industry doesn't demand support (and a lot of companies won't) for OSS and Free Software compilers, these will be less of a priority. People who demand support for OSS and Free software compilers are not neccisarily where the money is (they roll their own). It's fairly obvious when things are funded in a non-grant way.
Does the future of the internet really belong in the hands of companies who may be hit by recessions? Open Sourcing, real Open Sourcing, keeps ensuring that a product lives on. Shit, you should see some of the wonderful stuff produced at Xerox-PARC, which got really screwed, a lot of it hasn't lived on because it wasn't Open Sourced.
I think maybe if Microsoft did opensource everything they would dominate the market still because they'd still be the experts. They'd probably marginalise Linux too. Especially in the third world, China and India.
I seriously doub Microsoft could go the same way as Xerox but I imagine people said that about Xerox.
I agree, but , check how many and much of the.NET framework has been submitted to ECMA. However don't get me wrong, it is good, after all the vice-chairman of the MS/ECMA (TC39) work is Mr. C. Lewis, of Netscape! Which is a pretty pro opensource. Most people seem to of overlooked this.
I agree with you that.NET is one of the next logical internet programming platforms. However in many ways it is strangely lacking in long-term strategy. What happens if Microsoft looses share value, how is the essentially proprietary angle maintained in a recession? OTH I imagine the Free-software equivelents (MONO or the others) would florish, so I guess it could be the best thing to happen to Free-software.
Check out TC39.
In many ways it supports the pro-Microsoft argument, the following companies are represented:
Alcatel, Callscan, Compaq, HP, IBM, Microsoft, Netscape, Sun
Also the CLI has scoped to be plugged into almost any language.
But, I don't like the bulk of it (in application at least) being in the hands of a company that has been anti-competive in the past.
Last post on this thread please, I'm off topic enough most of the time as it is!
Yes, I'm looking at it from a pragmatic as opposed to computing standpoint. A minute is a long time on the net/with computing;-). Heck I have a five year old computer that is extremely slow in comparison to my five year old P.C..
However I still think that mesuring things in terms of technology is not a good metric, sometimes impact should be juxtaposed with innovation. Impact on people is sometimes more important. For instance more people use SMS messaging than email. SMTP was more widely accepted than X.400.
I'm not forming an overall opinion of him:-). It's just based on my experiences, others may have found him a beastly individual. He may club baby seals for all I know.
XML was introduced in 1996 and achieved success in 1997. While this is an evolution and common sense solution to the unwieldy and incomplete SGML browsers I would argue that it is pretty new.
I'm fairly suprised. If the free version of.NET is licensed as free software, who gives a damn?
I think the problem was the licensing and intellectual rights, plus the fact that "Free Software" (I got told off for using open source once) could be in-advertantly promoting Microsoft.
Personally I'll run the correct tools for the job at hand. But I do see that.GNU is in someways preventing a split between the free-software and proprietary world which is a bit grey;-).
I've had several dealings with RMS and he has been nothing other than rational. I think he is potentially inflexible but then he is open to constructive argument. Mind you I have only spoken to him a few times so I may have caught him in the right mood.
RMS actually seems to be pretty rational when it comes down to it. If Miguel puts up a rational argument I'm sure he'd swing RMS's opinion. I wonder if there will be a EMACS.net plugin. Somehow I doubt it.
Re:You ain't seen nothing yet.
on
Arguing A.I.
·
· Score: 1
Actually I've just noticed the spelling mistake (amazing how these wetware fuzzy logic units paper over our perception sometimes) , maybe an unconcious slip in the same fashion as reporting and reportage;-).
"Dependibility and prerelease software are two concepts that don't
belong in the same sentence, and Windows XP Beta 2 carries on the
tradition. This beta crashes now and again and lacks some features,
just like, well, a beta. But as betas go, Beta 2 is very stable,
indicating a final version will be a trustworthy companion."
How can they say this? They said similar things about Windows 95,
Windows 98, Windows ME, Windows NT 4 and Windows 2000. Given that the
older versions were considered trustworthy companions also, although
perhaps semantically expressed differently, how can CNET claim to
offer independent intelligence that enterprises make decisions on?
They basically can't. No commercial product is worth buying on the
initial release, most seem riddled with bugs and as far as I can see
anyone who buys a copy of Windows XP from the outset, even on company
cash is paying to be a beta tester. Although, and maybe to limit the
bug reports, I beleive you have to pay for pre-release versions. Wait
for the first service pack, CNET to revise their reviews and then
spend your cash.
It seems strange that people are willing to upgrade to effectively flawed
initial releases and balk at Linux. Still nobody ever got fired for
buying IBM. I wonder if anyone got fired for buying MS?
Slashdot Mirror
Giving me bed time, and water closet reading for weeks to come!
In the UK we have had RF tags for years but not permanent ones. I worked for a well known news agency once, their stock cupboards had RF tags.
But these things are insidious, one minute its RF tags, then next its iris based passports controlled directly by politicians.
American Psycho would certainly be a different book.
I can remember some interesting conversations with Emerson Tan, who used to knock up HERF guns with microwave magnatrons. I imagine his plans are still on the web somewhere.
There are effective RF jammers available for quite cheap cost these days. I can pick up GSM jammers for about £25, I could make one for less although the time involved would be costly.
If we were to get really clever we could use one that gives a random response. Its a torch, a plane, panties or whatever.
Yes, although the regulation has always been a problem in the US, too many fingers in the pie. The GHz auctions in the UK were an example of a myopic although correct way of doing it.
Too right. It's only when people lose the ability to remove these things that they become a problem.
Cumulatively it could be a problem though, look what happened in 1930's Germany. These things are insidious as opposed to blatant.
All mobile phones have ESN and SIM numbers so they are pretty identifiable. In Europe the GSM code to see the ESN is *#06 .
Pagers have always been incredibly easy to listen too, POCSAG, FLEX and all of the other standards are not much better than the telegram. I have seen people transmit passwords and pin-numbers on local (private - and I had permission to listen) pager networks.
As for your mobile company. If someone turns up with a badge are they going to keep your details secret and/or give them access to the network proper?
If theoretically we could transport a 1960s radical to the current time and showed them a printer and a basic word processor they would be amazed.
It constantly amazes me how few radical and pseudoradical mags are available. Or maybe it is that we are constantly bombarded and these magazines have become cliched.
Anyone remember Phrack or MED's e-zines? Used to get loads on my BBS. Don't seem to get as many on the internet now, at leas none with the same quality. Either that or there are so many that I don't know where to start.
A million voices calling out at once!
Point been that all technology can become cliched, and we maybe haven't found the best way to use it yet!
- John
How's about we start gearing them up to kill or co-exist with something biological, maybe robots using horseshit as fuel, that'd be a natural environment.
I find the light interesting because it's something available in our natural environment, it'd be cool if the robots could use more of our natural environment to survive.
Survivalist robots! Let them loose in the woods and six years later they are talking about toppling the fedral government. Give them a Leatherman and in six generations they'd build a city.
Good point! A natural environment is a pretty loose term. How are the paramaters and limits defined?
Incedently Noel Sharkey is one of the judges for Robot Wars (UK), could explain why he likes predators more.
Whilst .NET as a concept may be wonderfull, if the industry doesn't demand support (and a lot of companies won't) for OSS and Free Software compilers, these will be less of a priority. People who demand support for OSS and Free software compilers are not neccisarily where the money is (they roll their own). It's fairly obvious when things are funded in a non-grant way.
Does the future of the internet really belong in the hands of companies who may be hit by recessions? Open Sourcing, real Open Sourcing, keeps ensuring that a product lives on. Shit, you should see some of the wonderful stuff produced at Xerox-PARC, which got really screwed, a lot of it hasn't lived on because it wasn't Open Sourced.
I think maybe if Microsoft did opensource everything they would dominate the market still because they'd still be the experts. They'd probably marginalise Linux too. Especially in the third world, China and India.
I seriously doub Microsoft could go the same way as Xerox but I imagine people said that about Xerox.
- John
I agree, but , check how many and much of the .NET framework has been submitted to ECMA. However don't get me wrong, it is good, after all the vice-chairman of the MS/ECMA (TC39) work is Mr. C. Lewis, of Netscape! Which is a pretty pro opensource. Most people seem to of overlooked this.
.NET is one of the next logical internet programming platforms. However in many ways it is strangely lacking in long-term strategy. What happens if Microsoft looses share value, how is the essentially proprietary angle maintained in a recession? OTH I imagine the Free-software equivelents (MONO or the others) would florish, so I guess it could be the best thing to happen to Free-software.
I agree with you that
Check out TC39.
In many ways it supports the pro-Microsoft argument, the following companies are represented:
Alcatel, Callscan, Compaq, HP, IBM, Microsoft, Netscape, Sun
Also the CLI has scoped to be plugged into almost any language.
But, I don't like the bulk of it (in application at least) being in the hands of a company that has been anti-competive in the past.
- John
Last post on this thread please, I'm off topic enough most of the time as it is!
;-). Heck I have a five year old computer that is extremely slow in comparison to my five year old P.C..
Yes, I'm looking at it from a pragmatic as opposed to computing standpoint. A minute is a long time on the net/with computing
However I still think that mesuring things in terms of technology is not a good metric, sometimes impact should be juxtaposed with innovation. Impact on people is sometimes more important. For instance more people use SMS messaging than email. SMTP was more widely accepted than X.400.
- John
Hey, cheers for the reply.
:-). It's just based on my experiences, others may have found him a beastly individual. He may club baby seals for all I know.
I'm not forming an overall opinion of him
- John
XML was introduced in 1996 and achieved success in 1997. While this is an evolution and common sense solution to the unwieldy and incomplete SGML browsers I would argue that it is pretty new.
I don't think it is a Microsoft issue. I think people are confusing license issues with Microsoft issues. MS are pretty shrewd.
Oh, I didn't realise that. Thanks for correcting me. In that case I agree with RMS.
- John
I'm fairly suprised. If the free version of .NET is licensed as free software, who gives a damn?
.GNU is in someways preventing a split between the free-software and proprietary world which is a bit grey ;-).
I think the problem was the licensing and intellectual rights, plus the fact that "Free Software" (I got told off for using open source once) could be in-advertantly promoting Microsoft.
Personally I'll run the correct tools for the job at hand. But I do see that
I've discussed XML and various technologies with RMS and he seems pretty switched-on. Don't forget the guy is hella (to quote Cartmen) busy.
I've had several dealings with RMS and he has been nothing other than rational. I think he is potentially inflexible but then he is open to constructive argument. Mind you I have only spoken to him a few times so I may have caught him in the right mood.
RMS actually seems to be pretty rational when it comes down to it. If Miguel puts up a rational argument I'm sure he'd swing RMS's opinion. I wonder if there will be a EMACS .net plugin. Somehow I doubt it.
Actually I've just noticed the spelling mistake (amazing how these wetware fuzzy logic units paper over our perception sometimes) , maybe an unconcious slip in the same fashion as reporting and reportage ;-).
- John
Amazing.
"Dependibility and prerelease software are two concepts that don't belong in the same sentence, and Windows XP Beta 2 carries on the tradition. This beta crashes now and again and lacks some features, just like, well, a beta. But as betas go, Beta 2 is very stable, indicating a final version will be a trustworthy companion."
How can they say this? They said similar things about Windows 95, Windows 98, Windows ME, Windows NT 4 and Windows 2000. Given that the older versions were considered trustworthy companions also, although perhaps semantically expressed differently, how can CNET claim to offer independent intelligence that enterprises make decisions on? They basically can't. No commercial product is worth buying on the initial release, most seem riddled with bugs and as far as I can see anyone who buys a copy of Windows XP from the outset, even on company cash is paying to be a beta tester. Although, and maybe to limit the bug reports, I beleive you have to pay for pre-release versions. Wait for the first service pack, CNET to revise their reviews and then spend your cash.
It seems strange that people are willing to upgrade to effectively flawed initial releases and balk at Linux. Still nobody ever got fired for buying IBM. I wonder if anyone got fired for buying MS?