I will freely admit that (probably) neither of these images/ideas are practical.
The first thing that came to mind was this image of the shuttle towing the biggest horseshoe magnet imaginable through the orbital plane. Besides all the bits of space junk, it had also attracted (and grabbed) a conical spacecraft as seen in the old Gerry & Sylvia Anderson series "UFO" (does anyone besides me still remember that?)
The next thing that came to mind was a whole bunch of spacewalking astronauts, all armed with enormous titanium-mesh butterfly nets and maneuvering jet backpacks.
I know it would probably be expensive, but... Is there not some practical way to load the waste into mass-produced, unmanned, disposable rockets, and just shoot the whole affair straight into the sun? It would certainly solve both storage and environmental concerns.
Like I said: Expensive, yes. But how expensive is it going to be to safeguard stuff that's going to be emitting lethal levels of radiation for at least the next 10,000 years?
All the above is practical of course. I know the actual point, that MS doesn't want you to do it and so won't support or license it. However, this 'do as I say or else' attitude is just ludicrous. There's a huge installed base of NT4 in the corporate world, a tiny installed base of W2K and absolutely zero base of XP. MS should support its paying customers.
[break]
I couldn't agree more, and I doubt you'd get any argument from anyone you speak to who still uses NT. As you've already pointed out, you're being practical.
The problem is that "practical" is one of the many Proscribed Words and Phrases around the Redmond campus, right along with "Customer Service," "Secure Software," and the real biggie "Consumer Choice."
Uttering any one of these words or phrases will immediately subject the utterer involved to tarring, feathering, and being forced to store the entirety of Usenet on their choice of a single-density 8-inch floppy diskette, a roll of 1-inch punched paper tape, or one hundred 80-column punchcards.
Considering that our government tends to treat the entire population of the U.S., collectively, like a bunch of rowdy sixth-graders who can't be trusted to so much as tie their own shoes, does it come as any great surprise that the people behind this insanity (the entertainment industry, and probably Senator 'Disney' Hollings somewhere in the background) are taking pretty much the same view?
Micro$platt is, in essence, accusing us all of being thieves and media pirates in advance, and they're using that position to justify Palladium. All I can hope is that it'll die the same horrible death as DIVX did.
One thing I will say: If this goes through at full bore, it'll probably be a huge shot in the arm for the used-computer industry. Perhaps those who have pre-Palladium PCs, and non-PC systems (Suns, MicroVAXen, etc.), shouldn't be so quick to get rid of them.
Well, you have to admit this does have other possibilities. Perhaps Chuck Barris should be contacted to see if he'd like to host the Falun Gong Show...
(I wonder if I'm going to lose karma points for that one...)
Ummm....they're okay, for the occasional lucky used purchase, but check out Scarecrow Video
[scarecrow.com] it's THE place for movies in Seattle. It's one of the best movie rental places in the
world--in fact it's a destination store for many directors, screenwriters, various and sundry Hollywood
refugees...
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Huh? Silver Platters doesn't deal in used discs. Strictly new stuff. If they're the place you're referring to in the "Great Wall Mall" in Tukwila, you've got them all wrong. My mate and I have been buying from them for the last six years, and we've only gotten one bum DVD from them (promptly and courteously replaced).
Besides, defective DVDs aren't the fault of the retail store. How could they be, unless there's been some truly gross mistreatment involved. Bum DVDs, like the bum laserdiscs of Olde Days, are usually the result of a manufacturing defect.
HOWEVER -- Thanks for the info about Scarecrow Video. We'll go and check them out. They sound like a cool place to offload some of our old laserdiscs.
We've got a wonderful small-chain store local to the Puget Sound (Seattle, WA) region that specializes in nothing but DVDs and CDs. It's called 'Silver Platters.' They've got their web site still in the 'Under Construction' state, but you're going to be able to do online ordering Real Soon Now.
No, I don't work for them. My wife and I just happen to be very regular customers. We were in just yesterday (Saturday, June 29), and the Anime section had just been restocked. They were carrying, among other things, a newly-released boxed set of 'Sailor Moon.' I've also seen several 'Urusei Yatsura' DVDs there, and I know they can order (or at least try to order) just about anything a customer might want.
If you're local to the Puget Sound region, they have stores in at least Bellevue and Southcenter (Tukwila). Check the phone book.
Good hunting.
What web designers don't often think of...
on
Built For Use
·
· Score: 2
...is how well a visually impaired (read: blind or legally blind) person can access the site. All too often, it seems, site designers think that flash intros and all kinds of graphics bloat will get a stronger message across than simple, easy-to-read (and quick-loading!) text and hyperlinks.
I've lost count of the number of times my wife, who is legally blind, has mentioned this or that site to me that she couldn't make full use of because it was loaded down with non-meta tagged graphics, FLASH intros, etc. Ticketmaster is one example. She can check for events, but she's never had any success ordering tickets online.
The fancy graphics are useless to her because she literally cannot see them. Worse than useless, in fact, because her screen-reader software (Jaws) won't even try to recognize them.
E-commerce web site designers: If you must design a big flashy site that any Vegas producer would be proud of, fine. Knock yourselves out. HOWEVER -- Would you please also put in a text-only version of the site so that those with limited vision can at least shop around? At the very least, dump the FLASH intros and use meta tags on your graphics, OK?
Sheesh... This could be a real disaster for folks who grind their teeth in their sleep.
I can picture it now... Some poor slob is in the middle of a hot dream, their teeth are going like millstones, and they suddenly manage to call Zimbabwe at zero-dark-four local time.
The person at the other end picks up their phone, gives the bleary Zimbabwean equivalent of 'Hello,' an incoherent curse or whatever, and their only response is a loud snore.
Don't even get me started on where your calls might go if you started chowing down on saltwater taffy.
This event really gives me the impression that Disney is merely playing 'Catch up with Katzenberg.'
Consider: Someone else has pointed out that Dreamworks already made the switch to HP and Linux. Look at the visuals from their latest flick, 'Spirit: Stallion of the Cimarron.' Pretty impressive stuff, and good storytelling on top of it.
IMO, Disney hasn't released a single movie that has looked anywhere near as impressive, in visuals or in writing, since "Monsters, Inc." Don't get me started about their (upcoming? Already out?) "Lilo and Stitch" (which looks more like a blatant rip-off of the 'Pokemon' craze than anything else). On the other wing, I've not been disappointed with ANYthing that Dreamworks has released in that same period.
Perhaps Eisner is thinking that new hardware/software is all it'll take for Disney Studios to turn out similar winners in the theater. If so, he's sadly mistaken. The most advanced animation rendering farm in the world is useless without a well-written story for the characters thus created to work with.
Alternatively, let a moving truck do it for you.;-)
A while back, I read this story (don't remember where -- I think it may have been 'Computer Stupidities' on rinkworks.com or some such place) about a fellow who wanted to network his PC with that of a friend who lived in an apartment directly across the street from his window.
They ran a regular 10Base-T crossover cable from one computer, out the window and across the street, straight into the friend's window and then into their computer. I guess they thought they were high enough up, floor-wise, that vehicle traffic in the street below would not be a problem.
They were soon proved very wrong. The setup worked just fine until, one day, this guy's computer literally flew straight out the window in mid-type (his friend's computer was saved when the network cable snapped). It seems that a good-sized truck, with a nice tall exhaust stack, had passed by and snagged the network cable as neatly as any fighter jet's arresting hook would snag the braking cable on an aircraft carrier.
Is that taking 'mobile computing' just a bit far, or what?;-)
This is a great idea, but the NYT article leaves a number of questions unanswered.
First: It says they used 'software' to extend the range of the system. I don't see how that's possible unless there's some software tweak that increases the transmitter's output power beyond legal limits. Even then, I question whether the transmitter could handle such overdrive for extended periods as a device designed under FCC Part 15.
Now, with that said: It -is- possible to enhance existing WiFi hardware with a better antenna, but the transceiver in question would have to have a connector for an external antenna designed right in. You can't just attach something with a clip-lead, and hope it'll work; Not at 2.4 GHz!
Next up: I've checked Etherlinx's web site as well. It is, if possible, even less detail-rich than the article. I plan to send an E-mail query to try and dig some details out of them.
Another point: Something that the WiFi peddlers are all neglecting to mention is that 2.4 GHz is (among other things) an amateur ('ham') radio band, and that ATV (Amateur Television) on that band is getting to be mighty popular, especially in the Bay Area. Slashdot has already run an article on the issue of low-power interference on 2.4 gigs... I can't help but wonder how well a big WiFi network would deal with the output signal from an ATV repeater when said signal could range anywhere from a couple of watts to the amateur max limit of a thousand watts.
And no, there is no regulation protecting Part 15 devices from interference. Quite the opposite. Read the label on any such device, and you will find that it is 'required to accept any interference, including that which may cause undesired operation.'
Just as one example, Carnegie Mellon University has, apparently, already taken this problem into account. Note this article from their Computing Services folk. They don't even want other 2.4 gig devices in operation on campus because of their own WiFi network.
Finally, the issue of security on WiFi has already been beat to death, but I'll mention it again anyway. I don't believe it's possible right now, outside of using some heavy-hitting 3rd party encryption hardware at each end of a link, to get security that's as good as that available on hardwire networks (One word: AirSnort). If anyone can prove me wrong on that point, please do so and I will cheerfully shut up about it!;-)
The 'death' of cable or DSL? Not bloody likely. Not until it can offer the same security as hardwire, be interference-free in both transmission and reception, offer the same SPEED as you can get from hardwire, and can do so for a price that won't run us all into the poorhouse.
Hey! Wait one frelling minute!! A 'workhole?' That's what I get sucked into at 08:00 every day when I walk in the door at my employer! Moya had nothing to do with it (lucky her!) unless Boeing's got a sooper-sekrit hangar for Leviathans somewhere on the campus...
I've been bitten by the plate supply on a number of tube devices, including an HF transmitter. It's no fun! In fact, the last one to get me literally bounced me across the room and left a burn on my arm.
I would be concerned about the "Joe Consumer" level of do-it-yourself folks, many of whom have probably never even HEARD of vacuum tubes, who misplace a screw or washer or something and, in doing so, manage to short the plate supply (which has got to be up around 300 VDC) to ground or to one of the low-voltage DC lines. I hope AOpen has got some enormous warning labels pasted all over this thing.
Another thing to consider, along those lines. How many of us have accidentally dropped a screw, or similar metallic object, into a computer while it's being worked on under power? If you're really lucky, the screw won't bridge anything when it falls, AND you'll see where it lands. If you're not so lucky, well...
I think anyone who wants to build a system using one of these boards should be required to take at least a couple of hours training on basic electronics safety, whether self-taught or in a class. Lord knows nobody reads manuals any more, so putting nine kinds of bright red 'CAUTION!' flag in the book isn't going to do any good at all.
On a final note: I, like others who have posted already, just don't see the point of doing something like this. If you're enough of an audiophile to be a fan of Truly Great Sound, you're not going to use a PC to get it. You're going to run out and get a nice old Carver (or similar) tube-based amp from wherever one gets such things these days, and hitch it up to a real hi-fi system.
Don't even get me started on running tube amps on switch-mode power supplies. The output filtering on said supply would have to be pretty amazing to keep the RF hash that any switcher generates out of the speakers.
The RIAA, et al., could learn from this...
on
Homogenized Music
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
It's a constant source of amazement to me that the big record labels keep whining about their revenues dropping due to piracy. Did it ever occur to them, even once, that their declining sales just might be due to the fact that people simply don't like what they're putting out? That they may not care for what they're hearing on commercial radio?
Fifteen years ago, I was buying 5-20 CD's a MONTH. I found much to listen to in terms of 'New Age' (primarily instrumental, related to Jazz) artists like Ray Lynch, Michael Manring, Checkfield, Pat Metheny, etc., to say nothing of rediscovering all of my rock-and-roll faves from earlier years.
Guess what? Almost all of what I bought were copies of what I had already heard on commercial radio. KKSF, in the Bay Area, to be exact, plus a few other stations playing "classic" rock.
Granted, there have been a few of the more recent vocal groups and singers that have caught and held my interest; Don Henley, when he went solo from the Eagles, Bruce Hornsby, Bryan Adams, etc. HOWEVER -- The real reason my CD buying has dropped like a rock (maybe two a year if that) in the past decade or so is because I'm not hearing hardly anything worth listening to, either on or off the radio.
Music, to me, is a form of storytelling. Whether it's fact, fiction, or somewhere in between doesn't matter to me as long as it is sung with a good voice ('from the heart' is a good way to put it), and with DECENT music to back it up.
By 'decent,' I'm referring to the idea that the singer also be the songwriter, if not also playing their own instrument. Jimmy Buffett is a great example. He has a band, yes, but he also plays guitar and Lord only knows what else, and he writes his own material for the most part.
I think what I miss the most about today's (alleged) "pop" music is that much of it is as empty of real meaning, of real 'heart' if you will, as the Mojave Desert is empty of water in midsummer. Real musicians put a lot of their own personality and feeling into their work, and that's what makes it unique.
Anyway, it seems (to my ears) that the only "good" stuff is showing up on the few independent stations left, and on "web radio." This pisses off the big labels, though, because they now seem to think that music should be lip-syncing "pop stars," dressed in glittery costumes with colors that no living creature would be caught dead in, putting on a show that I don't think even a Las Vegas producer would touch with a 3.048 meter pole.
Can't have any real creativity running around now, can they? It shines a bad light on their predigested pap-spewing money-machine, and makes the way they've been trying to trample fair-use rights look even more greedy and stupid than it already is.
Unimaginitive jerks...
'Simpler story-telling?' In 'Spider-man?
on
The Empire Stumbles
·
· Score: 1
You've got to be kidding. 'Spider-man' was way too predictable, its villain far too comic-bookish to be taken seriously (then again, considering the story's origins, that may not be a surprise), and rushed character development at best.
If you want to know what good story-telling is really like, go see 'Spirit: Stallion of the Cimarron.' Far from being another talking-animal flick, the producers darn near got the entire story out with nothing more than facial expressions, body language, impressive music from Bryan Adams, and some occasional narration.
In fact, my wife used to raise horses. She says that Dreamworks did a heck of a good job with their homework on how horses used to be captured and 'broken' to the saddle. If nothing else, Dreamworks probably deserve some brownie points for good research.
One conclusion I came to on my own a while back was that our science cannot possibly DEFINE the true nature of an object, event, or living creature; It can only DESCRIBE it in terms of what we perceive with our senses, in the terms of what we use as mathematics.
To clarify: One cannot look at, say, a dolphin and claim to know, just from observation, that their brain will perceive a visual image or sonic echo in a certain way. One can set up experiments to test the critter's visual acuity (been there...), or how well their built-in sonar works (done that...), but the results of such experiments will still only be DESCRIBING how these senses work in terms of how we, as humans, perceive that they worked. They can't possibly DEFINE how they work in terms of the dolphin's perceptions.
It sounds as though this book is, in a way, reinforcing that view. At least to my perception.;-)
First and foremost: College! Get your degree, be it two or four-year. I regret not getting mine a lot earlier in life.
Also, one great way that I've found to gain lots of experience is to have one or more hobbies similar to your job. In my case, my skills in amateur ("ham") radio, computers, and general electronics have proven to be a potent mix that has kept me employed.
In short: Be multi-talented. It's great that you want to be a SysAdmin, yes, but DON'T limit yourself just to what you'd need to know as an SA. As one example, study basic electronics (I'm talking hardware level) on the side. Get your ham radio license if you want. Believe it or not, knowing things like Ohm's Law, and how basic circuits work can be of tremendous help in troubleshooting things like network wiring, peripheral problems, etc.
And, while I'm on that subject, learn something about telephony as well! Learn the standard wiring color code and basic switching. Teach yourself something about PBX's, and how voice/data systems interact.
I guess what I'm really saying is: Instead of trying to be a "guru" in one field, try being at least well-informed, and preferably get some hands-on experience, in several. You won't regret it.
Those who care to teach themselves enough about advertising, marketing, and computer workings to help them avoid being led around by the nose will still retain some degree of privacy.
Those who do not care will end up with their "consumer profiles" pasted all over marketing databases all over the country, if not the planet.
I can only assume that a great many people do not care what info about them is loose in the world. Those who feel that way will invariably get exactly what they deserve. Sad but true. Knowledge is still power, and that power can work both ways.
After reading the article, and having already read Cliff Stoll's "Silicon Snake Oil" and "High-Tech Heretic," I can see that this is one of the things he was worried would happen: That without the skills of critical and analytical thought, without the ability to interpret what the Internet can present in a proper context, people are very likely to take what they find on it at face value.
One example: It's easy to turn up porn sites with a search engine like Google. Someone notices how easy it is, gets all offended and huffy, and starts trumpeting about how the Internet is full of porn.
While true to some degree, they're taking it way out of context. Specifically, one has to go LOOKING for such material to find it. It does not (unless you've got some really racy wallpaper) just "pop up" on one's screen, as some politicians seem to believe.
Another example: Taking any story on any of the news sites at face value. The same problem of media bias and spin exists on the 'net, just as it does in any other mass media news outlet. No matter what's presented, you still need to be able to think logically and ANALYZE what you're seeing and reading to make some sense out of it.
So when are the public schools going to start teaching critical thinking and analysis skills? And I wonder if there are any parents left who make it a point to impart good common sense to their kids?
My key observation, after reading the article, probably parallels what others have already said, but I'll say it anyway.
If you want a product to "sell" (or, in the case of open-source, achieve widespread usage), make it the best product you possibly can, and offer it at a fair price with good customer service to back it up.
If it's good enough to do the job that people want it to do, it will sell itself. You won't even NEED to advertise, and your support needs will be minimized because of the solid design effort that went into the product to begin with.
The old Bell System (pre-divestiture) telephones are an excellent example of the kind of workmanship quality I'm talking about. How many are still Out There that are over 20 years old? 30? 40? More? And that are still cranking along just fine for what they do?
The simple principles of good workmanship and good service are ones that I think many hardware and software makers could benefit from remembering, including Billy-boy and the Redmondians. They might find themselves much better liked if they stopped trying to be so frelling greedy...
...when I read this sentence. It has to be one of the best examples of clueless market-speak I've ever seen.
".pro will be a premium brand, enabling effective, secure communication between professionals and users for the first time in the history of the Internet..."
I can only see the latter part of this being true IF:
--They can slip their "effective, secure communication" in between all the spam floating around.
--They use good encryption software.
--They either use Internet II for their backbone, or start their own Internet.
See what happens when you let the marketdroids out of their cage?
So... All you need is a high-voltage zapper of some sort -- one of the handheld "stun-guns" will do nicely. Pay for your item, take it out to your car, and ZAP! it before you take off. Failing that, a quick zap in a microwave oven (three or fewer seconds) should do the trick.
I don't care what kind of RFID chip whatever item you buy may have in it. It's not going to be able to withstand a few hundred thousand volts, or a blort-load of high-energy microwaves.
So if I get some of these things, and happen to use them on a fire at some point, I suppose it's inevitable that someone'll tell me "That's using your balls!"
It certainly adds new meaning to that old song "Great Balls of Fire!" Except now it's going to have to be "Great Balls of Anti-Fire!" or something similar.
And don't even get me started on the potential of these things for practical jokes in, say, golf games. Lord, I can just picture it: "FORE!" (thwopPAFFOOOSHHH!!)
I like it!;-) It's just the kind of terminally quirky thing that someone had to come up with eventually. I'll have to keep an eye on the Lab Safety Supply catalog and see if they start selling the things.
Slashdot Mirror
I will freely admit that (probably) neither of these images/ideas are practical.
;-)
The first thing that came to mind was this image of the shuttle towing the biggest horseshoe magnet imaginable through the orbital plane. Besides all the bits of space junk, it had also attracted (and grabbed) a conical spacecraft as seen in the old Gerry & Sylvia Anderson series "UFO" (does anyone besides me still remember that?)
The next thing that came to mind was a whole bunch of spacewalking astronauts, all armed with enormous titanium-mesh butterfly nets and maneuvering jet backpacks.
I think I'd better go take my meds...
I know it would probably be expensive, but... Is there not some practical way to load the waste into mass-produced, unmanned, disposable rockets, and just shoot the whole affair straight into the sun? It would certainly solve both storage and environmental concerns.
Like I said: Expensive, yes. But how expensive is it going to be to safeguard stuff that's going to be emitting lethal levels of radiation for at least the next 10,000 years?
You wrote...
[break]
All the above is practical of course. I know the actual point, that MS doesn't want you to do it and so won't support or license it. However, this 'do as I say or else' attitude is just ludicrous. There's a huge installed base of NT4 in the corporate world, a tiny installed base of W2K and absolutely zero base of XP. MS should support its paying customers.
[break]
I couldn't agree more, and I doubt you'd get any argument from anyone you speak to who still uses NT. As you've already pointed out, you're being practical.
The problem is that "practical" is one of the many Proscribed Words and Phrases around the Redmond campus, right along with "Customer Service," "Secure Software," and the real biggie "Consumer Choice."
Uttering any one of these words or phrases will immediately subject the utterer involved to tarring, feathering, and being forced to store the entirety of Usenet on their choice of a single-density 8-inch floppy diskette, a roll of 1-inch punched paper tape, or one hundred 80-column punchcards.
Keep the peace(es).
Considering that our government tends to treat the entire population of the U.S., collectively, like a bunch of rowdy sixth-graders who can't be trusted to so much as tie their own shoes, does it come as any great surprise that the people behind this insanity (the entertainment industry, and probably Senator 'Disney' Hollings somewhere in the background) are taking pretty much the same view?
Micro$platt is, in essence, accusing us all of being thieves and media pirates in advance, and they're using that position to justify Palladium. All I can hope is that it'll die the same horrible death as DIVX did.
One thing I will say: If this goes through at full bore, it'll probably be a huge shot in the arm for the used-computer industry. Perhaps those who have pre-Palladium PCs, and non-PC systems (Suns, MicroVAXen, etc.), shouldn't be so quick to get rid of them.
Keep the peace(es).
Well, you have to admit this does have other possibilities. Perhaps Chuck Barris should be contacted to see if he'd like to host the Falun Gong Show...
(I wonder if I'm going to lose karma points for that one...)
Ummm....they're okay, for the occasional lucky used purchase, but check out Scarecrow Video
[scarecrow.com] it's THE place for movies in Seattle. It's one of the best movie rental places in the
world--in fact it's a destination store for many directors, screenwriters, various and sundry Hollywood
refugees...
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Huh? Silver Platters doesn't deal in used discs. Strictly new stuff. If they're the place you're referring to in the "Great Wall Mall" in Tukwila, you've got them all wrong. My mate and I have been buying from them for the last six years, and we've only gotten one bum DVD from them (promptly and courteously replaced).
Besides, defective DVDs aren't the fault of the retail store. How could they be, unless there's been some truly gross mistreatment involved. Bum DVDs, like the bum laserdiscs of Olde Days, are usually the result of a manufacturing defect.
HOWEVER -- Thanks for the info about Scarecrow Video. We'll go and check them out. They sound like a cool place to offload some of our old laserdiscs.
We've got a wonderful small-chain store local to the Puget Sound (Seattle, WA) region that specializes in nothing but DVDs and CDs. It's called 'Silver Platters.' They've got their web site still in the 'Under Construction' state, but you're going to be able to do online ordering Real Soon Now.
No, I don't work for them. My wife and I just happen to be very regular customers. We were in just yesterday (Saturday, June 29), and the Anime section had just been restocked. They were carrying, among other things, a newly-released boxed set of 'Sailor Moon.' I've also seen several 'Urusei Yatsura' DVDs there, and I know they can order (or at least try to order) just about anything a customer might want.
If you're local to the Puget Sound region, they have stores in at least Bellevue and Southcenter (Tukwila). Check the phone book.
Good hunting.
...is how well a visually impaired (read: blind or legally blind) person can access the site. All too often, it seems, site designers think that flash intros and all kinds of graphics bloat will get a stronger message across than simple, easy-to-read (and quick-loading!) text and hyperlinks.
;-)
I've lost count of the number of times my wife, who is legally blind, has mentioned this or that site to me that she couldn't make full use of because it was loaded down with non-meta tagged graphics, FLASH intros, etc. Ticketmaster is one example. She can check for events, but she's never had any success ordering tickets online.
The fancy graphics are useless to her because she literally cannot see them. Worse than useless, in fact, because her screen-reader software (Jaws) won't even try to recognize them.
E-commerce web site designers: If you must design a big flashy site that any Vegas producer would be proud of, fine. Knock yourselves out. HOWEVER -- Would you please also put in a text-only version of the site so that those with limited vision can at least shop around? At the very least, dump the FLASH intros and use meta tags on your graphics, OK?
Thanks. From both of us.
It was obviously going out in the hopes of recruiting some Gaakolytes.
(I'll probably lose karma points for that one...)
Sheesh... This could be a real disaster for folks who grind their teeth in their sleep.
I can picture it now... Some poor slob is in the middle of a hot dream, their teeth are going like millstones, and they suddenly manage to call Zimbabwe at zero-dark-four local time.
The person at the other end picks up their phone, gives the bleary Zimbabwean equivalent of 'Hello,' an incoherent curse or whatever, and their only response is a loud snore.
Don't even get me started on where your calls might go if you started chowing down on saltwater taffy.
This event really gives me the impression that Disney is merely playing 'Catch up with Katzenberg.'
Consider: Someone else has pointed out that Dreamworks already made the switch to HP and Linux. Look at the visuals from their latest flick, 'Spirit: Stallion of the Cimarron.' Pretty impressive stuff, and good storytelling on top of it.
IMO, Disney hasn't released a single movie that has looked anywhere near as impressive, in visuals or in writing, since "Monsters, Inc." Don't get me started about their (upcoming? Already out?) "Lilo and Stitch" (which looks more like a blatant rip-off of the 'Pokemon' craze than anything else). On the other wing, I've not been disappointed with ANYthing that Dreamworks has released in that same period.
Perhaps Eisner is thinking that new hardware/software is all it'll take for Disney Studios to turn out similar winners in the theater. If so, he's sadly mistaken. The most advanced animation rendering farm in the world is useless without a well-written story for the characters thus created to work with.
>>3) Throw your computer out the window!
;-)
;-)
Alternatively, let a moving truck do it for you.
A while back, I read this story (don't remember where -- I think it may have been 'Computer Stupidities' on rinkworks.com or some such place) about a fellow who wanted to network his PC with that of a friend who lived in an apartment directly across the street from his window.
They ran a regular 10Base-T crossover cable from one computer, out the window and across the street, straight into the friend's window and then into their computer. I guess they thought they were high enough up, floor-wise, that vehicle traffic in the street below would not be a problem.
They were soon proved very wrong. The setup worked just fine until, one day, this guy's computer literally flew straight out the window in mid-type (his friend's computer was saved when the network cable snapped). It seems that a good-sized truck, with a nice tall exhaust stack, had passed by and snagged the network cable as neatly as any fighter jet's arresting hook would snag the braking cable on an aircraft carrier.
Is that taking 'mobile computing' just a bit far, or what?
This is a great idea, but the NYT article leaves a number of questions unanswered.
;-)
First: It says they used 'software' to extend the range of the system. I don't see how that's possible unless there's some software tweak that increases the transmitter's output power beyond legal limits. Even then, I question whether the transmitter could handle such overdrive for extended periods as a device designed under FCC Part 15.
Now, with that said: It -is- possible to enhance existing WiFi hardware with a better antenna, but the transceiver in question would have to have a connector for an external antenna designed right in. You can't just attach something with a clip-lead, and hope it'll work; Not at 2.4 GHz!
Next up: I've checked Etherlinx's web site as well. It is, if possible, even less detail-rich than the article. I plan to send an E-mail query to try and dig some details out of them.
Another point: Something that the WiFi peddlers are all neglecting to mention is that 2.4 GHz is (among other things) an amateur ('ham') radio band, and that ATV (Amateur Television) on that band is getting to be mighty popular, especially in the Bay Area. Slashdot has already run an article on the issue of low-power interference on 2.4 gigs... I can't help but wonder how well a big WiFi network would deal with the output signal from an ATV repeater when said signal could range anywhere from a couple of watts to the amateur max limit of a thousand watts.
And no, there is no regulation protecting Part 15 devices from interference. Quite the opposite. Read the label on any such device, and you will find that it is 'required to accept any interference, including that which may cause undesired operation.'
Just as one example, Carnegie Mellon University has, apparently, already taken this problem into account. Note this article from their Computing Services folk. They don't even want other 2.4 gig devices in operation on campus because of their own WiFi network.
Finally, the issue of security on WiFi has already been beat to death, but I'll mention it again anyway. I don't believe it's possible right now, outside of using some heavy-hitting 3rd party encryption hardware at each end of a link, to get security that's as good as that available on hardwire networks (One word: AirSnort). If anyone can prove me wrong on that point, please do so and I will cheerfully shut up about it!
The 'death' of cable or DSL? Not bloody likely. Not until it can offer the same security as hardwire, be interference-free in both transmission and reception, offer the same SPEED as you can get from hardwire, and can do so for a price that won't run us all into the poorhouse.
>...Moya was sucked in to a workhole...
Hey! Wait one frelling minute!! A 'workhole?' That's what I get sucked into at 08:00 every day when I walk in the door at my employer! Moya had nothing to do with it (lucky her!) unless Boeing's got a sooper-sekrit hangar for Leviathans somewhere on the campus...
I've been bitten by the plate supply on a number of tube devices, including an HF transmitter. It's no fun! In fact, the last one to get me literally bounced me across the room and left a burn on my arm.
I would be concerned about the "Joe Consumer" level of do-it-yourself folks, many of whom have probably never even HEARD of vacuum tubes, who misplace a screw or washer or something and, in doing so, manage to short the plate supply (which has got to be up around 300 VDC) to ground or to one of the low-voltage DC lines. I hope AOpen has got some enormous warning labels pasted all over this thing.
Another thing to consider, along those lines. How many of us have accidentally dropped a screw, or similar metallic object, into a computer while it's being worked on under power? If you're really lucky, the screw won't bridge anything when it falls, AND you'll see where it lands. If you're not so lucky, well...
I think anyone who wants to build a system using one of these boards should be required to take at least a couple of hours training on basic electronics safety, whether self-taught or in a class. Lord knows nobody reads manuals any more, so putting nine kinds of bright red 'CAUTION!' flag in the book isn't going to do any good at all.
On a final note: I, like others who have posted already, just don't see the point of doing something like this. If you're enough of an audiophile to be a fan of Truly Great Sound, you're not going to use a PC to get it. You're going to run out and get a nice old Carver (or similar) tube-based amp from wherever one gets such things these days, and hitch it up to a real hi-fi system.
Don't even get me started on running tube amps on switch-mode power supplies. The output filtering on said supply would have to be pretty amazing to keep the RF hash that any switcher generates out of the speakers.
It's a constant source of amazement to me that the big record labels keep whining about their revenues dropping due to piracy. Did it ever occur to them, even once, that their declining sales just might be due to the fact that people simply don't like what they're putting out? That they may not care for what they're hearing on commercial radio?
Fifteen years ago, I was buying 5-20 CD's a MONTH. I found much to listen to in terms of 'New Age' (primarily instrumental, related to Jazz) artists like Ray Lynch, Michael Manring, Checkfield, Pat Metheny, etc., to say nothing of rediscovering all of my rock-and-roll faves from earlier years.
Guess what? Almost all of what I bought were copies of what I had already heard on commercial radio. KKSF, in the Bay Area, to be exact, plus a few other stations playing "classic" rock.
Granted, there have been a few of the more recent vocal groups and singers that have caught and held my interest; Don Henley, when he went solo from the Eagles, Bruce Hornsby, Bryan Adams, etc. HOWEVER -- The real reason my CD buying has dropped like a rock (maybe two a year if that) in the past decade or so is because I'm not hearing hardly anything worth listening to, either on or off the radio.
Music, to me, is a form of storytelling. Whether it's fact, fiction, or somewhere in between doesn't matter to me as long as it is sung with a good voice ('from the heart' is a good way to put it), and with DECENT music to back it up.
By 'decent,' I'm referring to the idea that the singer also be the songwriter, if not also playing their own instrument. Jimmy Buffett is a great example. He has a band, yes, but he also plays guitar and Lord only knows what else, and he writes his own material for the most part.
I think what I miss the most about today's (alleged) "pop" music is that much of it is as empty of real meaning, of real 'heart' if you will, as the Mojave Desert is empty of water in midsummer. Real musicians put a lot of their own personality and feeling into their work, and that's what makes it unique.
Anyway, it seems (to my ears) that the only "good" stuff is showing up on the few independent stations left, and on "web radio." This pisses off the big labels, though, because they now seem to think that music should be lip-syncing "pop stars," dressed in glittery costumes with colors that no living creature would be caught dead in, putting on a show that I don't think even a Las Vegas producer would touch with a 3.048 meter pole.
Can't have any real creativity running around now, can they? It shines a bad light on their predigested pap-spewing money-machine, and makes the way they've been trying to trample fair-use rights look even more greedy and stupid than it already is.
Unimaginitive jerks...
You've got to be kidding. 'Spider-man' was way too predictable, its villain far too comic-bookish to be taken seriously (then again, considering the story's origins, that may not be a surprise), and rushed character development at best.
If you want to know what good story-telling is really like, go see 'Spirit: Stallion of the Cimarron.' Far from being another talking-animal flick, the producers darn near got the entire story out with nothing more than facial expressions, body language, impressive music from Bryan Adams, and some occasional narration.
In fact, my wife used to raise horses. She says that Dreamworks did a heck of a good job with their homework on how horses used to be captured and 'broken' to the saddle. If nothing else, Dreamworks probably deserve some brownie points for good research.
Keep the peace(es).
One conclusion I came to on my own a while back was that our science cannot possibly DEFINE the true nature of an object, event, or living creature; It can only DESCRIBE it in terms of what we perceive with our senses, in the terms of what we use as mathematics.
;-)
To clarify: One cannot look at, say, a dolphin and claim to know, just from observation, that their brain will perceive a visual image or sonic echo in a certain way. One can set up experiments to test the critter's visual acuity (been there...), or how well their built-in sonar works (done that...), but the results of such experiments will still only be DESCRIBING how these senses work in terms of how we, as humans, perceive that they worked. They can't possibly DEFINE how they work in terms of the dolphin's perceptions.
It sounds as though this book is, in a way, reinforcing that view. At least to my perception.
Most interesting...
First and foremost: College! Get your degree, be it two or four-year. I regret not getting mine a lot earlier in life.
Also, one great way that I've found to gain lots of experience is to have one or more hobbies similar to your job. In my case, my skills in amateur ("ham") radio, computers, and general electronics have proven to be a potent mix that has kept me employed.
In short: Be multi-talented. It's great that you want to be a SysAdmin, yes, but DON'T limit yourself just to what you'd need to know as an SA. As one example, study basic electronics (I'm talking hardware level) on the side. Get your ham radio license if you want. Believe it or not, knowing things like Ohm's Law, and how basic circuits work can be of tremendous help in troubleshooting things like network wiring, peripheral problems, etc.
And, while I'm on that subject, learn something about telephony as well! Learn the standard wiring color code and basic switching. Teach yourself something about PBX's, and how voice/data systems interact.
I guess what I'm really saying is: Instead of trying to be a "guru" in one field, try being at least well-informed, and preferably get some hands-on experience, in several. You won't regret it.
Good hunting!
Those who care to teach themselves enough about advertising, marketing, and computer workings to help them avoid being led around by the nose will still retain some degree of privacy.
Those who do not care will end up with their "consumer profiles" pasted all over marketing databases all over the country, if not the planet.
I can only assume that a great many people do not care what info about them is loose in the world. Those who feel that way will invariably get exactly what they deserve. Sad but true. Knowledge is still power, and that power can work both ways.
By the way, I'm NOT paranoid (who wants to know?)
After reading the article, and having already read Cliff Stoll's "Silicon Snake Oil" and "High-Tech Heretic," I can see that this is one of the things he was worried would happen: That without the skills of critical and analytical thought, without the ability to interpret what the Internet can present in a proper context, people are very likely to take what they find on it at face value.
One example: It's easy to turn up porn sites with a search engine like Google. Someone notices how easy it is, gets all offended and huffy, and starts trumpeting about how the Internet is full of porn.
While true to some degree, they're taking it way out of context. Specifically, one has to go LOOKING for such material to find it. It does not (unless you've got some really racy wallpaper) just "pop up" on one's screen, as some politicians seem to believe.
Another example: Taking any story on any of the news sites at face value. The same problem of media bias and spin exists on the 'net, just as it does in any other mass media news outlet. No matter what's presented, you still need to be able to think logically and ANALYZE what you're seeing and reading to make some sense out of it.
So when are the public schools going to start teaching critical thinking and analysis skills? And I wonder if there are any parents left who make it a point to impart good common sense to their kids?
My key observation, after reading the article, probably parallels what others have already said, but I'll say it anyway.
If you want a product to "sell" (or, in the case of open-source, achieve widespread usage), make it the best product you possibly can, and offer it at a fair price with good customer service to back it up.
If it's good enough to do the job that people want it to do, it will sell itself. You won't even NEED to advertise, and your support needs will be minimized because of the solid design effort that went into the product to begin with.
The old Bell System (pre-divestiture) telephones are an excellent example of the kind of workmanship quality I'm talking about. How many are still Out There that are over 20 years old? 30? 40? More? And that are still cranking along just fine for what they do?
The simple principles of good workmanship and good service are ones that I think many hardware and software makers could benefit from remembering, including Billy-boy and the Redmondians. They might find themselves much better liked if they stopped trying to be so frelling greedy...
...when I read this sentence. It has to be one of the best examples of clueless market-speak I've ever seen.
".pro will be a premium brand, enabling effective, secure communication between professionals and users for the first time in the history of the Internet..."
I can only see the latter part of this being true IF:
--They can slip their "effective, secure communication" in between all the spam floating around.
--They use good encryption software.
--They either use Internet II for their backbone, or start their own Internet.
See what happens when you let the marketdroids out of their cage?
So... All you need is a high-voltage zapper of some sort -- one of the handheld "stun-guns" will do nicely. Pay for your item, take it out to your car, and ZAP! it before you take off. Failing that, a quick zap in a microwave oven (three or fewer seconds) should do the trick.
I don't care what kind of RFID chip whatever item you buy may have in it. It's not going to be able to withstand a few hundred thousand volts, or a blort-load of high-energy microwaves.
So if I get some of these things, and happen to use them on a fire at some point, I suppose it's inevitable that someone'll tell me "That's using your balls!"
;-) It's just the kind of terminally quirky thing that someone had to come up with eventually. I'll have to keep an eye on the Lab Safety Supply catalog and see if they start selling the things.
It certainly adds new meaning to that old song "Great Balls of Fire!" Except now it's going to have to be "Great Balls of Anti-Fire!" or something similar.
And don't even get me started on the potential of these things for practical jokes in, say, golf games. Lord, I can just picture it: "FORE!" (thwopPAFFOOOSHHH!!)
I like it!