I am currently running SuSe 6.3 on a P200MMX machine with 96 megs and a 4.3 gig drive. I am not a Linux guru by any means. Over the past several weeks, I have been tweaking and torquing various things in the system - currently I am trying to get X and Window Maker set up just the way I want them. Along the way, I installed many of the WMs to see which one I liked best.
So far, Window Maker/GNUstep is what I have found to be most responsive, and most intuitive for my needs. It is also highly configurable, and easy to manage, as well. FVWM2 comes in a good second - but it looked a little too "old" (I am sure this is only because I haven't played with tweaking it yet - I have seen some pretty cool fvwm desktops - I just wanted something different looking from Windows). Gnome seemed ok, but it took forever to load up fully (I am not sure why, it may be it, my machine, or something I need to set up). KDE was alright - but seemed less polished in areas, and if you turned on a lot of stuff (or popped in a gargantuan theme), it started to act slow (on dragging windows, etc).
I have found Window Maker to load up FAST. I love it. Sure, it has it's quirks (I seem to constantly lose the dock, for instance - but I think that is me) - but I can get to what I need, and it looks good.
So maybe it is the choice or setup of the WM that is the problem. One thing that I have found, at least for my machine, is to turn off full window content redraw on dragging - instead just showing an outline - much quicker to move the window (it moved fine before, just a bit jerky).
I still have a ton of stuff to do (setting up a screen saver is one, a custom theme is another) - but I am enjoying every minute of getting there - even when I want to scream in frustration! I have a lot left to do (including setting up a dev environment - I still haven't decided on the language yet!) - but I will get there. It is fun, and exciting - two things sorely lacking in the Windows world.
It's much like writing a SNES emulator for PC, and using it to play SNES games that you own. Intuitively, this seems quite fair. You own the game, why can't you play it? But now you don't need to buy a SNES console, and the people developing the game in the first place were only licensed the information needed to develop because Nintendo wanted them to develop games in order to help sell SNES consoles. There is a legitimate financial framework involved, and by bypassing that you potentially deprive that company of revenue.
Except one can't buy an SNES from Nintendo anymore. Sure, they can be bought on the used market, but what happens when all used "copies" are gone. BTW, know where I can buy a ColecoVision to play all my carts I have collected in the past? Or a PDP-8 to read this damn paper tape?
Let's say I bought a whole mess of DVDs (currently, I don't own any, or a DVD player of any sort - and won't, until this thing is sorted out - however, I do have my copy of DeCSS - plus my shirt!), and then the MPAA members decide to actually "fix" the DVD scheme, rendering current DVDs "obsolete" overnight (actually, this is kinda what 2600 is asking for - just like the bank changing their lock combo)...
Things might be ok for the time being - however, what about in 20 years? My player is probably dead at that point - and I probably can't get another. But I still own the DVDs, which may be perfectly playable. However, in order to play them (legally), I need a licensed player.
Or think about this, what happens in 100 years to the DVDs and players? 500 years?
But back to your statement. I have some SNES cartridges. If I am able to copy them to another medium (say onto a hard drive), and I haven't the ability to play them (because I can't obtain an SNES), then I have the right (under fair use) to use an emulator to enjoy them. However, under the DMCA, doing so would be illegal.
The first link actually seems to be the best - instead of lasers, ultra-high brightness LED's are used - no great distances here, but aiming doesn't have to be as accurate, fog/rain/birds are less of a problem, the hardware interface is rather simple, and the LED's (and other parts) are cheap!
I was once "situated" in the computer/printer room at one company I worked for - it was placed right at the front of the office, with a huge glass window looking in - so that visitors could see the computers (ooh, ahh! Impressive), and me (of course) working diligently. About this room:
Standard room - but wired like crap. At the time, my desk had a VT100 terminal, and I was sitting next to a Genicom 3820 line printer. Behind me, within touching distance, was a Genicom 4440 line printer. These printers were in constant use. Next to that, was a Prime computer cabinet housing the modems (constantly being dialed out on), a huge fan-cooled power supply, and a 9-track hand-loaded, vacuum column tape drive - plus a variety of various machines we worked on. Needless to say, it was INSANELY noisy. To top it off, it was air-conditioned - to about 50 degrees.
While what you read may be correct, there are a few reasons why such buildings tend to few in most places:
1. Zoning Codes - yeah, bureacracy. Maybe it is simple something saying a building can only be a certain height in an area, but this stops most. 2. Ground Makeup - tall buildings tend to need a stable foundation - solid granite for most large tall buildings - otherwise they will sink, tilt, or do other nasty things which can make for a bad day. 3. Cost - I imagine, up to a point, most tall buildings cost the same as squat buildings. But at a certain point or height, the cost probably rises near exponentially - duing to technical reasons and need to hire skilled workers to build the thing.
However, I agree with your other points. Personally, I would like to see a cubiclized office, but with the cubicles made with real walls, etc. Then, on one wall - have it be a multiple LCD display (or maybe a projector system mounted in the ceiling), showing live outdoor views as the background for X - voila, no need for real windows...
I know I am too late for this to be read, let alone moderated, but I must protest!
Am I the only geek in the world (ok, maybe those German sites know something) who watched and enjoyed Riptide as a youth (beat out Miami Vice in my book)? Am I the only geek who owns a copy of K-Power with the Riptide stars on the cover (actually, that may be true!).
I loved the orange robot! It had guns, chase sequences, a robot and a nerd/geek/programmer for crying out loud! Between this and Whiz Kids, what young geek could want more???
The last part of the article talked about ways of making file trading more difficult on the internet, via laws and such - legal methods to allow cops to police the net, and seize user's machines who were caught trading. A point was made that geeks in SV don't see the govt as a threat because they have never seen the govt get serious.
Maybe not...
But I'll tell you somthing - the day the net becomes this "un-free", is the day I work with every friend and neighbor I can to setup a neighborhood freenet using laser interconnects. I encourage everyone to give this thought, and learn how to do it yourself - there are many links and sites detailing this - heck, many HAM clubs and operators are doing it as well. Look up the terms "lasercomm", "laser comms", "laser communications". Read about the history of it. Buy the Forest Mimms books at Radio Shack that detail how to do it (to a limited degree). Get those interconnects set up, link to the net where you have to (via DSL, cable or whatnot), add radio links as well (2.4 GHz is currently unlicensed - mod an X-10 camera transceiver system - or an AirLink, whatever - add a Yagi - bammo!) for redundancy.
Then get your guns - because it may come down to that...
Somehow I doubt the robot pictured was the one carrying the gun - however, such a machine isn't unique...
I ran across a hobbiest's site once who had built a machine that shot BB's out of a pneumatic gatling gun type device. Not really enough to harm someone, but enough to annoy the hell out of them.
The army has long thought about teleoperated machines and robots for use in battle. I remember one device they built that was essentially a mortar mounted on a quad, the thing could take out tanks reasonably well.
Another company that worked with the DOD for developing such devices was Odetic's Inc. (www.odetics.com) - they built a robot called the ODEX-1 (IIRC), it was a 6 legged spider type affair, that stood approx. 6 feet tall, but it could scrunch down, and do other things - in order to get into tight spaces. It was a very stable and strong platform, with stereo cameras. However, I don't know if it had any on-board computers or not.
It was developed in the mid-80's - Pop Sci had a couple of articles about it, and it was featured in more than a few robotics books. Omni magazine had a robot pic spread that included it once, as well. I was a kid at the time - but I still have a lot of the information about the machine - if anyone is interested.
Then, it just dissappeared. I don't know if funding dried up (casualty of the Cold War?), or what - but Odetics doesn't have any kind of robot or defense division. I am planning on calling them, to see if they even remember the robot. It was a great machine - I just wonder what happened to it...
Take a look over at SRL's website (www.srl.org), and imagine one of the more mobile machines (personally, I like the V1) being used in some kind of "devious" way - on the offensive, as you say...
OK - I just went to the site - all I can say is:
YES!!! YES!!! YES!!!!!!!
Sorry - damn near had an orgasm - they are returning to Phoenix!!! I went to their show in '96 - best damn time I've had in a LONG while. You better bet I'll be there again this year!
If you've never been to a showing by SRL - you haven't got a clue...
I dare you to point out how code, when written down on a piece of paper or spoken out loud, can cause a malicious act! Only upon execution, by some form of Turing/Von Neuman machine, can code have the possibility of causing a malicious act.
Some can say a virus is a malicious piece of code - you would obviously agree with this statement. The problem is that a computer virus much more closely resembles their real-world biological counterparts, yet we still have yet to see an "immune system" built for computers, that works as well as immune systems in nature (and sure, even natural ones aren't perfect). What happens when there exists self-replicating programs, that have the ability to erase/wipe/quarantine other self-replicating, "malicious" code - do these benevolent "viruses" become malicious code as well?
Finally, on your comment of my "childish" comment - I simply want my freedom, as defined by the Constitution of the United States (of which I am a natural citizen). I am tired of seeing my rights, and those of my fellow citizens, being trampled upon in the name of greed and power, by other individuals and corporations. I am not asking to be allowed to shoot someone, I am merely wanting my right to use the DVD that I paid money for, on any system - bought, hand built, hand coded, or spun on a pencil! - that I may own or devise.
What are your thoughts, on if you lose on appeal (and I pray/incant/cast that it won't happen), on the implications this will have for things other than DVDs?
CSS is a content control system, not a copyright protection scheme. Under the DMCA, they (the MPAA and cronies) could have simply ROT13'd the data on the DVD and as soon as someone figured it out, the MPAA could have gone to court. The encryption doesn't stop copying - under the DMCA it becomes a legal method to prevent the use of a piece of software on a particular hardware platform, fair use be damned!
So what happens if for a new video/ethernet/sound card, microcode that helps control it (on the hardware itself), is encrypted, and by "breaking" it to allow, say, a competing OS to use the card (such as Linux), whereas before one needed the special drivers for Windows, happens? Suddenly, under the DMCA, this is ruled illegal - and thus all hardware could be easily tied to only work with certain software or OS's? Wouldn't this kind of product tying be illegal in and of itself?
And therein, if the DVD is regarded as software, and a seperate product from the licenced DVD player (say a hardware one manufactured by Sony) - requiring the use of one product to use another, isn't this tying illegal as well?
So, is this a free speech issue? Please read my story, I only want help...
Once upon a time, there was no World Wide Web. Then lo!, along came http:// - and all was good. Sites sprung up all over the world, and people began to wonder - "How can we find the information we need?". The idea of search sites became popular, and they were provided. One came late, but proved most useful - it's name was www.google.com. It had a simple interface, and used standard URL/CGI code to work, thus a programmer could look up "source code", and the URL would have extra stuff tacked on the end, like/search?q=source+code+. This helped the web grow, and become larger and more important in the everyday lives of people. Then along came DVDs and DVD Players. However, none of these players ran on Linux, and thus was born a program to allow people who had purchased DVDs to play their DVDs on their platform of choice. This program had a name - it was named decss.
This code is NOT MALICIOUS CODE! Have you even looked at it?
DeCSS is essentially a filter, taking input at one end, and producing viewable output (actually, not even that - you need to pipe the output to an mpeg player for that) at the other.
DeCSS doesn't facilitate piracy - nor does it inhibit it.
For your information - I DO want to pay for DVD's - I would love to buy a few DVD's, to watch at home - on any system I own, whether that is a licensed player from Sony, a DVD player on a doze box, or on my Linux system.
I want to watch what I want, where I want, when I want, on whatever system I wish. I don't want the information shut behind a lock and key, that only a few worthy (or brain dead, as the case may be) may view.
CSS isn't about copy protection - it's about content control.
You state that "pretty soon it will actually be worth it to do it". I say it is closer than we really think...
I would be willing to be that one can already purchase pirated DVD's via some "underground" asian market - probably even via the internet - today. I have never seen such a site myself, but somehow I think it exists. What I am talking about here is a "stamping" operation - not a DeCSS copy type system (and why you would ever use DeCSS to create a copy of a DVD is beyond me - maybe going from DVD->VCD or something, but not DVD->DVD).
The other day I was at Fry's - and I noticed that an off brand of DVD-RAM disks (not DVD-RW, I know there is a difference) were going for $15.00 a pop - name brand disks were going for $25.00 a piece. I know these can't hold a full-size DVD movie, but it does show a price drop - I am sure you can get DVD-RAM disks cheaper online, as well.
I have never seen DVD-RW media for sale (media capable of holding a full DVD), probably for the reason that a) DVD-RW drives are not consumer items yet, and are very expensive b) even if they were, each person buying one would have to get a license key to make DVD's - given the limited keyspace, this isn't likely.
Look at the bottle - see the number "57" right where the neck starts to bend to form the body? After shaking the ketchup, turn the bottle toward where you want to pour, and gently tap the number with the heel of your hand, and the ketchup will start to flow.
If they are charging at the "break even point", why don't they allow @Home users the ability to get some of the services from @Work - in other words, instead of having a two-tier approach, with two radically different pricing levels (I know - I looked into getting @Work for my home), why don't they have more of an "a la carte" setup, where one could pick and choose bandwidth and services based on what they want or need, with the option to add or subtract bandwidth and services whenever they wish (or every 3 months, or whatever).
Give us more tiers, and charge accordingly! That way consumers get what they want, and businesses can get theirs. DSL works this way, telephone works this way - why can't cable (and don't get me started on cable TV - I hate sports channels, but I am forced to get them, even though I don't watch them, at all - why?)...
Yeah, they could - or they could (in a Windows case), just turn on sharing, etc - and drag and drop.
However, none of these things is secure. Nor will an FTP server allow for easy access to that MP3 collection at the cabin.
A well set up VPN would be much more secure, and more flexible - because it would simply be an encrypted tunnel between two seperate private networks. I am sure right now people are doing exactly as you suggest, setting up multiple FTP servers and sharing files with family - and I am sure people are doing the Windows sharing thing as well (at least within a particular subnet - maybe with their neighbor or something). However, these people will be in for a rude "suprise" when someone "comes in" and takes a bunch of stuff not meant for them, or places something nasty on the machines, or for that matter, reformats the drive, etc (I am assuming Windows boxes).
Of course, if people are doing this, one could argue about how could we expect them to properly set up a VPN, when they don't even try to firewall their boxes - a good question indeed...
@Home simply takes a certain set of services and says 'off limits' to non-business clients so they have something to sell to business clients.
I understand what you are saying - but the fact is that people are going to want to do VPN someday at home. One could argue at one time that no one would ever set up a home network, that was just a business thing - but people are now doing it.
I tend to wonder if many of these things are just business imposing artificial scarcity on a "resource". In other words, would home networking have happened faster if the cards were cheap(er) to begin with? Maybe, maybe not (of course, the counter argument would be that the computers weren't cheap enough to have multiple machines at home).
So now are we left with a business telling us that we can't do VPN, because it is a business thing only - when I have already outlined several personal uses of such technology for home use?
Like I said before, just give us the pipe, and leave us alone (home, business, who cares).
@Home is prohibiting VPN's, and obviously wants to relegate you setting one up as a business thing, as an @Work option. IE - they want you to pay more...
How long do they think this can last? I can imagine a normal family, in the very near future, who want to share all the resources of their family network, via VPN connections. Maybe mom and dad have @Home, the son is in college, lives off-campus and has @Home, the daughter and new husband lives across town and has @Home, and maybe the family (the mom and dad) also own a cabin by the lake, and they get @Home there as well.
They want to share their files, so they each set up a fileserver, at each node: at mom and dad's, the son in his apartment, as well as the daughter (and husband). After setting these fileservers up, they probably want to access (and share) files anywhere in the network - their personal, home-use only files, nothing business related. They each are paying for their IP's. The only way to let them do what they want, securely, is via VPN connections, right? What if mom wants to print a recipie for her daughter? She could email it, or print it through the VPN connected printer at her daughter's house. Or maybe they want to set up a VPN'd family recipe book (of course, accessed via a mod'ed iOpenner in the kitchen)? Or maybe they want to setup a private family email "ring", or "list" (wedding announcements, family get-togethers, etc)? Here's an angle: What about those MP3s (of CD's they own, of course) stored on the home server, that the family wants to stream to the cabin, while on vacation (this is fair use, right - or at least, domain shifting)?
@Home doesn't get it - they really don't get broadband, and the possibilities it opens for the sharing of data amongst people (or maybe they do, and are running scared, perhaps?). This hypothetical VPN use I've outlined doesn't warrant an @Work setup - it is a private VPN.
If it isn't happenning already, it will - private VPN's will be the next "thing" in private home networking - and @Home is shooting themselves in the foot for disallowing this...
I wish @Home would just give us the pipe, and let US decide what to do with it!
Well, my post was kinda OT, but no problem - I'm not a karma whore, so I don't really care.
Thanks to everyone who responded - right now I am running a Win95 box set up as a proxy/firewall server, using AnalogX proxy and ZoneAlarm for the FW (it's my GF's box, ok? I plan on doing a Linksys router/NAT combo soon anyhow). I probably wouldn't run a server on this box, due to security issues - heck, I am nervous about the proxy/FW combo I chose, but I needed something cheap, and they did the trick, plus they seemed to be pretty highly recommended, and easy to set up.
Eventually I will move the the Linksys device (or set up an imasq Linux box, once I get the skills) - then I will think further about this server thing - however, the info you guys provided has eased my mind a bit. Thank you!
Now, my first inclination was think "Louisiana", not "Los Angeles" - so I am not too sure which area it is in, but both could be areas of high concentration of "poor" people.
Reading about reversing the problem, this was my idea too - except for the fact that you would run into the problem of people who are using the service not knowing what/where they can go/see, because they may have never have used the internet (or a computer) before.
I would say have an opt-in method - block everything, but put a few sites on that are normal sites (like news sites, entertainment sites and some information sites - too bad there wasn't so much possible "bad" stuff on/. - it would be a great site for budding hacker/geeks out there). Maybe do the whole "blocking past one or two links deep - or only allowing the reading of material from the main domain, etc", as another poster noted. Then, set up a box or something near the machine where people can drop in suggestions for sites. In addition, have the home page set up to take suggestions as well. These suggestions should be emailed or picked up, then read over by someone, who can then decide what to add to the main directory (off the "home" page).
In addition, don't allow typed in URL's - the only way to "add" a URL should be via the comments box or the email system. Lock down the box pretty tight (both physically and network wise - IE, don't leave any cables, except for power, exposed, lock the CPU away, and set the system up so that no one can get root), maybe provide a keyboard that has certain keys disabled (if a keyboard is absolutely necessary - maybe you can get away with a trackball). Definitely use a trackball, probably a large one, for any disabled or elderly folk who may want to use the machine.
Also, every once in a while, go down to the place, and talk with the people - find out what their interests really are, and let them know what you can, and can't do - and why (I mean, if a ton of people say they want porn, point to the jr high across the street, and tell them your policy). Don't the leave the computer(s) to sit and be faceless things, that nobody ever sees anybody working on (which is one thing that always depressed me about some laudromats - they felt faceless).
Finally, take to heart the whole "elevate the monitor" thing - make the computers kiosks where you need to stand, and use large monitors (or 27" TV's running @ 640x480 - not pretty, but cheap)...
I currently use @Home (Cox@Home, specifically, here in Phoenix), and prior to hooking up with them, I asked about running a server (I even asked about changing the contract to allow this, paying more, etc - I actually told them I would pay the MORE to let me run a server - and they turned me down!), and after talking to a "tech", he said that as long as I wasn't running a wide-open public server, I would be fine.
I know the TOS says that you can't run servers. I am not so uptight about the contract that I wouldn't try such a thing (it ain't like you are going to go to jail or something for doing it - yet...), but I wonder what would happen if I did?
Which ports does @Home scan? Only the low numbers? High numbers? Random? What if I ran a web server on say port 45830 - what are the chances I would be caught? Especially if the only traffic is myself (from my work or elsewhere)? What if I made you log into the server before letting someone through (so only I could get in)?
I would like to set up only a few servers - a web, ftp, maybe telnet as well - for my own personal use. Since I would be the only one using them, I would even be willing to put them on funky ports, instead of the common public ones.
It has been debated on this article over the legitimacy of distributing "abandonware", and out-of-print books. But what of out-of-print magazines?
When PCVR's (see my site, if you want to know more) publisher (Joeseph Gradecki) decided to stop publishing (for whatever reason), I bought a copy of each of the back issues. As far as I know, Mr. Gradecki is still alive. I want to republish some of the articles (I would love to do the magazine, but I don't have the time or money) on my web site, to make them available for others, but so far, all attempts at contacting him to ask permission have failed (I even got his mail address from his last publisher - alas, the mail came back "Return to Sender/Address unknown"). I can't contact the authors of the pieces in most cases, since many didn't have email addresses or leave snail mail addresses, either.
Short of reading the articles, and writing my own distillation of the article (or building the device, saying how I built it, and referencing the article) - I don't believe I can legally republish the article (though I tend to wonder if doing so would bring Mr. Gradecki out of the woodwork, so to speak)...
Does anyone have any ideas on what I should do?
I have a similar collection of articles from BYTE magazine (though not nearly as complete), but the PCVR issues are more at stake, since you can still look at BYTE in hardbound form in library stacks...
Slashdot Mirror
I am currently running SuSe 6.3 on a P200MMX machine with 96 megs and a 4.3 gig drive. I am not a Linux guru by any means. Over the past several weeks, I have been tweaking and torquing various things in the system - currently I am trying to get X and Window Maker set up just the way I want them. Along the way, I installed many of the WMs to see which one I liked best.
So far, Window Maker/GNUstep is what I have found to be most responsive, and most intuitive for my needs. It is also highly configurable, and easy to manage, as well. FVWM2 comes in a good second - but it looked a little too "old" (I am sure this is only because I haven't played with tweaking it yet - I have seen some pretty cool fvwm desktops - I just wanted something different looking from Windows). Gnome seemed ok, but it took forever to load up fully (I am not sure why, it may be it, my machine, or something I need to set up). KDE was alright - but seemed less polished in areas, and if you turned on a lot of stuff (or popped in a gargantuan theme), it started to act slow (on dragging windows, etc).
I have found Window Maker to load up FAST. I love it. Sure, it has it's quirks (I seem to constantly lose the dock, for instance - but I think that is me) - but I can get to what I need, and it looks good.
So maybe it is the choice or setup of the WM that is the problem. One thing that I have found, at least for my machine, is to turn off full window content redraw on dragging - instead just showing an outline - much quicker to move the window (it moved fine before, just a bit jerky).
I still have a ton of stuff to do (setting up a screen saver is one, a custom theme is another) - but I am enjoying every minute of getting there - even when I want to scream in frustration! I have a lot left to do (including setting up a dev environment - I still haven't decided on the language yet!) - but I will get there. It is fun, and exciting - two things sorely lacking in the Windows world.
I support the EFF - do you?
You wrote:
It's much like writing a SNES emulator for PC, and using it to play SNES games that you own. Intuitively, this seems quite fair. You own the game, why can't you play it? But now you don't need to buy a SNES console, and the people developing the game in the first place were only licensed the information needed to develop because Nintendo wanted them to develop games in order to help sell SNES consoles. There is a legitimate financial framework involved, and by bypassing that you potentially deprive that company of revenue.
Except one can't buy an SNES from Nintendo anymore. Sure, they can be bought on the used market, but what happens when all used "copies" are gone. BTW, know where I can buy a ColecoVision to play all my carts I have collected in the past? Or a PDP-8 to read this damn paper tape?
Let's say I bought a whole mess of DVDs (currently, I don't own any, or a DVD player of any sort - and won't, until this thing is sorted out - however, I do have my copy of DeCSS - plus my shirt!), and then the MPAA members decide to actually "fix" the DVD scheme, rendering current DVDs "obsolete" overnight (actually, this is kinda what 2600 is asking for - just like the bank changing their lock combo)...
Things might be ok for the time being - however, what about in 20 years? My player is probably dead at that point - and I probably can't get another. But I still own the DVDs, which may be perfectly playable. However, in order to play them (legally), I need a licensed player.
Or think about this, what happens in 100 years to the DVDs and players? 500 years?
But back to your statement. I have some SNES cartridges. If I am able to copy them to another medium (say onto a hard drive), and I haven't the ability to play them (because I can't obtain an SNES), then I have the right (under fair use) to use an emulator to enjoy them. However, under the DMCA, doing so would be illegal.
CSS is not about copy protection.
CSS is about content control.
I support the EFF - do you?
Links you might want to look into...
h ttp://www.alphalink.com.au/~derekw/upntc vr.htmt s/laserlink.html/ members.mint.net/n1bug/tech/laser/lase rfr.htmle pairfaq.org/sam/lasersam.htm ://www.qsl.net/k3pgp/opening.htm
http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~clock/r0nj4/
http://www.hut.fi/Misc/Electronics/circui
http://www.geociti es.com/SiliconValley/Lakes/7156/laser.htm
http:/
http://opencollector.org/
http://www.r
http
The first link actually seems to be the best - instead of lasers, ultra-high brightness LED's are used - no great distances here, but aiming doesn't have to be as accurate, fog/rain/birds are less of a problem, the hardware interface is rather simple, and the LED's (and other parts) are cheap!
I support the EFF - do you?
I was once "situated" in the computer/printer room at one company I worked for - it was placed right at the front of the office, with a huge glass window looking in - so that visitors could see the computers (ooh, ahh! Impressive), and me (of course) working diligently. About this room:
Standard room - but wired like crap. At the time, my desk had a VT100 terminal, and I was sitting next to a Genicom 3820 line printer. Behind me, within touching distance, was a Genicom 4440 line printer. These printers were in constant use. Next to that, was a Prime computer cabinet housing the modems (constantly being dialed out on), a huge fan-cooled power supply, and a 9-track hand-loaded, vacuum column tape drive - plus a variety of various machines we worked on. Needless to say, it was INSANELY noisy. To top it off, it was air-conditioned - to about 50 degrees.
I support the EFF - do you?
While what you read may be correct, there are a few reasons why such buildings tend to few in most places:
1. Zoning Codes - yeah, bureacracy. Maybe it is simple something saying a building can only be a certain height in an area, but this stops most.
2. Ground Makeup - tall buildings tend to need a stable foundation - solid granite for most large tall buildings - otherwise they will sink, tilt, or do other nasty things which can make for a bad day.
3. Cost - I imagine, up to a point, most tall buildings cost the same as squat buildings. But at a certain point or height, the cost probably rises near exponentially - duing to technical reasons and need to hire skilled workers to build the thing.
However, I agree with your other points. Personally, I would like to see a cubiclized office, but with the cubicles made with real walls, etc. Then, on one wall - have it be a multiple LCD display (or maybe a projector system mounted in the ceiling), showing live outdoor views as the background for X - voila, no need for real windows...
I support the EFF - do you?
I know I am too late for this to be read, let alone moderated, but I must protest!
Am I the only geek in the world (ok, maybe those German sites know something) who watched and enjoyed Riptide as a youth (beat out Miami Vice in my book)? Am I the only geek who owns a copy of K-Power with the Riptide stars on the cover (actually, that may be true!).
I loved the orange robot! It had guns, chase sequences, a robot and a nerd/geek/programmer for crying out loud! Between this and Whiz Kids, what young geek could want more???
I support the EFF - do you?
The last part of the article talked about ways of making file trading more difficult on the internet, via laws and such - legal methods to allow cops to police the net, and seize user's machines who were caught trading. A point was made that geeks in SV don't see the govt as a threat because they have never seen the govt get serious.
Maybe not...
But I'll tell you somthing - the day the net becomes this "un-free", is the day I work with every friend and neighbor I can to setup a neighborhood freenet using laser interconnects. I encourage everyone to give this thought, and learn how to do it yourself - there are many links and sites detailing this - heck, many HAM clubs and operators are doing it as well. Look up the terms "lasercomm", "laser comms", "laser communications". Read about the history of it. Buy the Forest Mimms books at Radio Shack that detail how to do it (to a limited degree). Get those interconnects set up, link to the net where you have to (via DSL, cable or whatnot), add radio links as well (2.4 GHz is currently unlicensed - mod an X-10 camera transceiver system - or an AirLink, whatever - add a Yagi - bammo!) for redundancy.
Then get your guns - because it may come down to that...
I support the EFF - do you?
Somehow I doubt the robot pictured was the one carrying the gun - however, such a machine isn't unique...
I ran across a hobbiest's site once who had built a machine that shot BB's out of a pneumatic gatling gun type device. Not really enough to harm someone, but enough to annoy the hell out of them.
The army has long thought about teleoperated machines and robots for use in battle. I remember one device they built that was essentially a mortar mounted on a quad, the thing could take out tanks reasonably well.
Another company that worked with the DOD for developing such devices was Odetic's Inc. (www.odetics.com) - they built a robot called the ODEX-1 (IIRC), it was a 6 legged spider type affair, that stood approx. 6 feet tall, but it could scrunch down, and do other things - in order to get into tight spaces. It was a very stable and strong platform, with stereo cameras. However, I don't know if it had any on-board computers or not.
It was developed in the mid-80's - Pop Sci had a couple of articles about it, and it was featured in more than a few robotics books. Omni magazine had a robot pic spread that included it once, as well. I was a kid at the time - but I still have a lot of the information about the machine - if anyone is interested.
Then, it just dissappeared. I don't know if funding dried up (casualty of the Cold War?), or what - but Odetics doesn't have any kind of robot or defense division. I am planning on calling them, to see if they even remember the robot. It was a great machine - I just wonder what happened to it...
I support the EFF - do you?
Take a look over at SRL's website (www.srl.org), and imagine one of the more mobile machines (personally, I like the V1) being used in some kind of "devious" way - on the offensive, as you say...
OK - I just went to the site - all I can say is:
YES!!! YES!!! YES!!!!!!!
Sorry - damn near had an orgasm - they are returning to Phoenix!!! I went to their show in '96 - best damn time I've had in a LONG while. You better bet I'll be there again this year!
If you've never been to a showing by SRL - you haven't got a clue...
I support the EFF - do you?
I dare you to point out how code, when written down on a piece of paper or spoken out loud, can cause a malicious act! Only upon execution, by some form of Turing/Von Neuman machine, can code have the possibility of causing a malicious act.
Some can say a virus is a malicious piece of code - you would obviously agree with this statement. The problem is that a computer virus much more closely resembles their real-world biological counterparts, yet we still have yet to see an "immune system" built for computers, that works as well as immune systems in nature (and sure, even natural ones aren't perfect). What happens when there exists self-replicating programs, that have the ability to erase/wipe/quarantine other self-replicating, "malicious" code - do these benevolent "viruses" become malicious code as well?
Finally, on your comment of my "childish" comment - I simply want my freedom, as defined by the Constitution of the United States (of which I am a natural citizen). I am tired of seeing my rights, and those of my fellow citizens, being trampled upon in the name of greed and power, by other individuals and corporations. I am not asking to be allowed to shoot someone, I am merely wanting my right to use the DVD that I paid money for, on any system - bought, hand built, hand coded, or spun on a pencil! - that I may own or devise.
I support the EFF - do you?
What are your thoughts, on if you lose on appeal (and I pray/incant/cast that it won't happen), on the implications this will have for things other than DVDs?
CSS is a content control system, not a copyright protection scheme. Under the DMCA, they (the MPAA and cronies) could have simply ROT13'd the data on the DVD and as soon as someone figured it out, the MPAA could have gone to court. The encryption doesn't stop copying - under the DMCA it becomes a legal method to prevent the use of a piece of software on a particular hardware platform, fair use be damned!
So what happens if for a new video/ethernet/sound card, microcode that helps control it (on the hardware itself), is encrypted, and by "breaking" it to allow, say, a competing OS to use the card (such as Linux), whereas before one needed the special drivers for Windows, happens? Suddenly, under the DMCA, this is ruled illegal - and thus all hardware could be easily tied to only work with certain software or OS's? Wouldn't this kind of product tying be illegal in and of itself?
And therein, if the DVD is regarded as software, and a seperate product from the licenced DVD player (say a hardware one manufactured by Sony) - requiring the use of one product to use another, isn't this tying illegal as well?
I support the EFF - do you?
So, is this a free speech issue? Please read my story, I only want help...
/search?q=source+code+. This helped the web grow, and become larger and more important in the everyday lives of people. Then along came DVDs and DVD Players. However, none of these players ran on Linux, and thus was born a program to allow people who had purchased DVDs to play their DVDs on their platform of choice. This program had a name - it was named decss.
Once upon a time, there was no World Wide Web. Then lo!, along came http:// - and all was good. Sites sprung up all over the world, and people began to wonder - "How can we find the information we need?". The idea of search sites became popular, and they were provided. One came late, but proved most useful - it's name was www.google.com. It had a simple interface, and used standard URL/CGI code to work, thus a programmer could look up "source code", and the URL would have extra stuff tacked on the end, like
I support the EFF - do you?
You posted:
"by your logic, do the people without PC access should have the right to have a free copy mailed to them?"
Actually, yes, they do - it's called public information.
I support the EFF - do you?
This code is NOT MALICIOUS CODE! Have you even looked at it?
DeCSS is essentially a filter, taking input at one end, and producing viewable output (actually, not even that - you need to pipe the output to an mpeg player for that) at the other.
DeCSS doesn't facilitate piracy - nor does it inhibit it.
For your information - I DO want to pay for DVD's - I would love to buy a few DVD's, to watch at home - on any system I own, whether that is a licensed player from Sony, a DVD player on a doze box, or on my Linux system.
I want to watch what I want, where I want, when I want, on whatever system I wish. I don't want the information shut behind a lock and key, that only a few worthy (or brain dead, as the case may be) may view.
CSS isn't about copy protection - it's about content control.
I support the EFF - do you?
You state that "pretty soon it will actually be worth it to do it". I say it is closer than we really think...
I would be willing to be that one can already purchase pirated DVD's via some "underground" asian market - probably even via the internet - today. I have never seen such a site myself, but somehow I think it exists. What I am talking about here is a "stamping" operation - not a DeCSS copy type system (and why you would ever use DeCSS to create a copy of a DVD is beyond me - maybe going from DVD->VCD or something, but not DVD->DVD).
The other day I was at Fry's - and I noticed that an off brand of DVD-RAM disks (not DVD-RW, I know there is a difference) were going for $15.00 a pop - name brand disks were going for $25.00 a piece. I know these can't hold a full-size DVD movie, but it does show a price drop - I am sure you can get DVD-RAM disks cheaper online, as well.
I have never seen DVD-RW media for sale (media capable of holding a full DVD), probably for the reason that a) DVD-RW drives are not consumer items yet, and are very expensive b) even if they were, each person buying one would have to get a license key to make DVD's - given the limited keyspace, this isn't likely.
I support the EFF - do you?
Look at the bottle - see the number "57" right where the neck starts to bend to form the body? After shaking the ketchup, turn the bottle toward where you want to pour, and gently tap the number with the heel of your hand, and the ketchup will start to flow.
I support the EFF - do you?
If they are charging at the "break even point", why don't they allow @Home users the ability to get some of the services from @Work - in other words, instead of having a two-tier approach, with two radically different pricing levels (I know - I looked into getting @Work for my home), why don't they have more of an "a la carte" setup, where one could pick and choose bandwidth and services based on what they want or need, with the option to add or subtract bandwidth and services whenever they wish (or every 3 months, or whatever).
Give us more tiers, and charge accordingly! That way consumers get what they want, and businesses can get theirs. DSL works this way, telephone works this way - why can't cable (and don't get me started on cable TV - I hate sports channels, but I am forced to get them, even though I don't watch them, at all - why?)...
I support the EFF - do you?
Yeah, they could - or they could (in a Windows case), just turn on sharing, etc - and drag and drop.
However, none of these things is secure. Nor will an FTP server allow for easy access to that MP3 collection at the cabin.
A well set up VPN would be much more secure, and more flexible - because it would simply be an encrypted tunnel between two seperate private networks. I am sure right now people are doing exactly as you suggest, setting up multiple FTP servers and sharing files with family - and I am sure people are doing the Windows sharing thing as well (at least within a particular subnet - maybe with their neighbor or something). However, these people will be in for a rude "suprise" when someone "comes in" and takes a bunch of stuff not meant for them, or places something nasty on the machines, or for that matter, reformats the drive, etc (I am assuming Windows boxes).
Of course, if people are doing this, one could argue about how could we expect them to properly set up a VPN, when they don't even try to firewall their boxes - a good question indeed...
I support the EFF - do you?
@Home simply takes a certain set of services and says 'off limits' to non-business clients so they have something to sell to business clients.
I understand what you are saying - but the fact is that people are going to want to do VPN someday at home. One could argue at one time that no one would ever set up a home network, that was just a business thing - but people are now doing it.
I tend to wonder if many of these things are just business imposing artificial scarcity on a "resource". In other words, would home networking have happened faster if the cards were cheap(er) to begin with? Maybe, maybe not (of course, the counter argument would be that the computers weren't cheap enough to have multiple machines at home).
So now are we left with a business telling us that we can't do VPN, because it is a business thing only - when I have already outlined several personal uses of such technology for home use?
Like I said before, just give us the pipe, and leave us alone (home, business, who cares).
I support the EFF - do you?
@Home is prohibiting VPN's, and obviously wants to relegate you setting one up as a business thing, as an @Work option. IE - they want you to pay more...
How long do they think this can last? I can imagine a normal family, in the very near future, who want to share all the resources of their family network, via VPN connections. Maybe mom and dad have @Home, the son is in college, lives off-campus and has @Home, the daughter and new husband lives across town and has @Home, and maybe the family (the mom and dad) also own a cabin by the lake, and they get @Home there as well.
They want to share their files, so they each set up a fileserver, at each node: at mom and dad's, the son in his apartment, as well as the daughter (and husband). After setting these fileservers up, they probably want to access (and share) files anywhere in the network - their personal, home-use only files, nothing business related. They each are paying for their IP's. The only way to let them do what they want, securely, is via VPN connections, right? What if mom wants to print a recipie for her daughter? She could email it, or print it through the VPN connected printer at her daughter's house. Or maybe they want to set up a VPN'd family recipe book (of course, accessed via a mod'ed iOpenner in the kitchen)? Or maybe they want to setup a private family email "ring", or "list" (wedding announcements, family get-togethers, etc)? Here's an angle: What about those MP3s (of CD's they own, of course) stored on the home server, that the family wants to stream to the cabin, while on vacation (this is fair use, right - or at least, domain shifting)?
@Home doesn't get it - they really don't get broadband, and the possibilities it opens for the sharing of data amongst people (or maybe they do, and are running scared, perhaps?). This hypothetical VPN use I've outlined doesn't warrant an @Work setup - it is a private VPN.
If it isn't happenning already, it will - private VPN's will be the next "thing" in private home networking - and @Home is shooting themselves in the foot for disallowing this...
I wish @Home would just give us the pipe, and let US decide what to do with it!
I support the EFF - do you?
Well, my post was kinda OT, but no problem - I'm not a karma whore, so I don't really care.
Thanks to everyone who responded - right now I am running a Win95 box set up as a proxy/firewall server, using AnalogX proxy and ZoneAlarm for the FW (it's my GF's box, ok? I plan on doing a Linksys router/NAT combo soon anyhow). I probably wouldn't run a server on this box, due to security issues - heck, I am nervous about the proxy/FW combo I chose, but I needed something cheap, and they did the trick, plus they seemed to be pretty highly recommended, and easy to set up.
Eventually I will move the the Linksys device (or set up an imasq Linux box, once I get the skills) - then I will think further about this server thing - however, the info you guys provided has eased my mind a bit. Thank you!
Now, my first inclination was think "Louisiana", not "Los Angeles" - so I am not too sure which area it is in, but both could be areas of high concentration of "poor" people.
/. - it would be a great site for budding hacker/geeks out there). Maybe do the whole "blocking past one or two links deep - or only allowing the reading of material from the main domain, etc", as another poster noted. Then, set up a box or something near the machine where people can drop in suggestions for sites. In addition, have the home page set up to take suggestions as well. These suggestions should be emailed or picked up, then read over by someone, who can then decide what to add to the main directory (off the "home" page).
Reading about reversing the problem, this was my idea too - except for the fact that you would run into the problem of people who are using the service not knowing what/where they can go/see, because they may have never have used the internet (or a computer) before.
I would say have an opt-in method - block everything, but put a few sites on that are normal sites (like news sites, entertainment sites and some information sites - too bad there wasn't so much possible "bad" stuff on
In addition, don't allow typed in URL's - the only way to "add" a URL should be via the comments box or the email system. Lock down the box pretty tight (both physically and network wise - IE, don't leave any cables, except for power, exposed, lock the CPU away, and set the system up so that no one can get root), maybe provide a keyboard that has certain keys disabled (if a keyboard is absolutely necessary - maybe you can get away with a trackball). Definitely use a trackball, probably a large one, for any disabled or elderly folk who may want to use the machine.
Also, every once in a while, go down to the place, and talk with the people - find out what their interests really are, and let them know what you can, and can't do - and why (I mean, if a ton of people say they want porn, point to the jr high across the street, and tell them your policy). Don't the leave the computer(s) to sit and be faceless things, that nobody ever sees anybody working on (which is one thing that always depressed me about some laudromats - they felt faceless).
Finally, take to heart the whole "elevate the monitor" thing - make the computers kiosks where you need to stand, and use large monitors (or 27" TV's running @ 640x480 - not pretty, but cheap)...
I currently use @Home (Cox@Home, specifically, here in Phoenix), and prior to hooking up with them, I asked about running a server (I even asked about changing the contract to allow this, paying more, etc - I actually told them I would pay the MORE to let me run a server - and they turned me down!), and after talking to a "tech", he said that as long as I wasn't running a wide-open public server, I would be fine.
I know the TOS says that you can't run servers. I am not so uptight about the contract that I wouldn't try such a thing (it ain't like you are going to go to jail or something for doing it - yet...), but I wonder what would happen if I did?
Which ports does @Home scan? Only the low numbers? High numbers? Random? What if I ran a web server on say port 45830 - what are the chances I would be caught? Especially if the only traffic is myself (from my work or elsewhere)? What if I made you log into the server before letting someone through (so only I could get in)?
I would like to set up only a few servers - a web, ftp, maybe telnet as well - for my own personal use. Since I would be the only one using them, I would even be willing to put them on funky ports, instead of the common public ones.
Anybody have ideas or comments?
It has been debated on this article over the legitimacy of distributing "abandonware", and out-of-print books. But what of out-of-print magazines?
When PCVR's (see my site, if you want to know more) publisher (Joeseph Gradecki) decided to stop publishing (for whatever reason), I bought a copy of each of the back issues. As far as I know, Mr. Gradecki is still alive. I want to republish some of the articles (I would love to do the magazine, but I don't have the time or money) on my web site, to make them available for others, but so far, all attempts at contacting him to ask permission have failed (I even got his mail address from his last publisher - alas, the mail came back "Return to Sender/Address unknown"). I can't contact the authors of the pieces in most cases, since many didn't have email addresses or leave snail mail addresses, either.
Short of reading the articles, and writing my own distillation of the article (or building the device, saying how I built it, and referencing the article) - I don't believe I can legally republish the article (though I tend to wonder if doing so would bring Mr. Gradecki out of the woodwork, so to speak)...
Does anyone have any ideas on what I should do?
I have a similar collection of articles from BYTE magazine (though not nearly as complete), but the PCVR issues are more at stake, since you can still look at BYTE in hardbound form in library stacks...
Please advise...
You obviously haven't got a firm grasp on the history of calculation machines, data processing, or computers. I would suggest you look into:
/
a. Charles Babbage
b. Herman Hollerith
c. Konrad Zuse
d. John Vincent Atanasoff and Clifford E. Berry
Also, take a look at this site:
http://zeus.fh-brandenburg.de/~tenbusch/history