Do I like my job? I honestly can't say that. It has its challenges, yes (I'm a Unix SysAdmin at a large aerospace company in the Pacific Northwest), but our corporate "leadership" is a joke, and the resultant lack of clue seems to flow down the pipe through all the levels of management we've got.
Why do I stay? Because, at least for now, one of the benefits is that they pay the full cost of my college tuition towards my EE degree. If that benefit went away, I would do everything I could to move on inside of a month.
So, I think I will stick around long enough to get my degree. Once that happens, I'll be out of there so fast that there'll be a soft 'boom!' from the imploding air left in my wake.
And you know what? I think that sucks. I think it sucks that any company big enough to be both engineer and factory just doesn't seem to want to do either one any more. I think it sucks that they don't seem to want to do much more than assemble parts that other companies build, just like a giant Heathkit (remember those?)
Then again, that's me. I'm not a high-(over?)paid corporate exec, so maybe it's not my place to understand these things. Maybe there's nothing to understand, and it just comes down to short-sighted greed.
Enough ranting. Good luck to the fellow at NASA. I hope things are at least better there than they are at my spot.
Background: I'm self-hosted (read: I run all my own servers -- mail, web, DNS, the works), so the only things I'm dependent on my ISP for are my DSL pipe, static IP's, and Usenet (the latter soon to change, once I set up NNTPCache locally). My ISP greatly appreciates this as I am pretty much zero drain on their support desk.
I used to complain to ISPs in China, Korea, Taiwan, and parts of South America (Argentina, notably) about their spammers, and their open relays. I kept giving them chance after chance to Do The Right Thing and Get A Clue.
Unfortunately, they never did. As of last October, I set up the 'Deny Access' listings on my mail servers to block traffic from any domain ending with.cn,.kr, or.tw. Thanks to increasing spam from Mexico and Argentina, and equally clueless admins in both countries, I've also blocked the entire 200.0.0.0/8 subnet.
Did I want to do it? No! I have a regular customer in Chile (I opened a hole in the blocklist for their IP range), and I had (before I closed the metaphorical doors) gotten an occasional query from the Asian arena. Unfortunately, it was either run the risk of losing a little business or be deluged by spam. Guess what I chose?
If blocking that region is the only way to get some action, so that it'll be safe to UNblock in the future, great! So be it. I sympathize with those in the respective country who are caught in the crossfire, but I would also point out that those same folk are in an excellent position to put pressure on their local ISPs to cut the spammer's access. Permanently.
Until I see some clear evidence, preferably from indpendent sources, that the Asian arena is no longer a spam source, then it will remain blocked at my servers.
Dump a bunch of PDA's, no matter how cleverly designed, on a bunch of kids from all over the world, and the first question is very likely to be "What games can it run?"
Just as Cliff Stoll has so eloquently pointed out in his books ("Silicon Snake Oil" and "High-Tech Heretic"), learning to use technological gimmicks should be way down on the list of things that kids need to learn to function in the world.
I'm not stating that technology cannot be used as a teaching AID. It most certainly can! However, I think it's extremely important -- I would even say critical -- that your program emphasize (and, hopefully, teach!) the importance of critical thought, analysis skills, reading and writing, basic math, etc. BEFORE it teaches how to apply those skills with technological widgets.
In short: If you're going to do this, teach the kids that technology is a TOOL. Teach them that it is NOT, under ANY conditions, a substitute or crutch to replace the basic 'wetware' skills that we all need.
Should you believe otherwise, I would suggest that you take a look at any of the high-traffic Usenet discussion groups. Pay particular attention to the grammar, syntax, and spelling in the posts. With the obvious exception of those for whom English is not their native language, it's pretty easy to tell who knows how to use logic and language, and who does not.
...instead of taking the lazy (and dangerous) route of making the thing transformerless. Other than that, I have no complaints about it.
It would not have been hard to design a proper power supply for that clock. In fact, I question the designer's wisdom, maybe even their competence, in not going with said supply. Transformerless designs, I thought, went out with the old tube-type clock radios.
For those that are thinking of making the thing, I'd strongly suggest doing it right. You'll probably need a couple of amps worth of 5V, and the tubes should run on anything from +130-170VDC.
If you can't find an appropriate transformer that contains the requisite HV winding, try using two transformers: One for the low-V stuff, and the other being, say, a 12V filament transformer, wired such that the secondary winding is hooked to a 12V winding on the first transformer. The step-up effect should be enough to drive your tubes (you don't need a lot of current for Nixies).
I've seen the odd Bally machine that used the neon displays for scoring. Said displays are called 'PanaPlex,' and they were originally developed by Burroughs Corp.
They're kind of interesting in that they're nothing more than complex neon lamps. They consist of metal segments, laid out in the pattern of a seven or fifteen-segment display, sealed in a glass enclosure that contains (of course) neon. Apply about +130VDC to the common anode, and then ground the appropriate lead for the segment that you want to light up.
I don't see them much any more, at least not in pinball machines. The reason, I think, is that PanaPlex displays did not stand up to vibration and shock particularly well, and pinball machines dispense both in generous quantity.
For trivia buffs: There was one other type of vacuum display tube made that consisted of individual incandescent filaments, in the familiar seven-segment pattern, sealed into what looked for all the world like a standard miniature tube envelope. I don't recall who made them, but their trade name was 'Numitron.'
Anyone remember any more about them? The BART system in the Bay Area (California) had loads of them in their old ticket machines and other digital readouts, such as those used on the station agent consoles.
"Typically, members of the DMA aren't the problem. It's some fly-by-night outfit that is advertising Herbal Viagra or Hong Kong Vacation Discounts or whatever..."
You got it backwards. That's "Herbal Vacations" and "Hong Kong Viagra."
Geez... What if the "backup" drive fails with the last six months of critical accounting data on it? Data-recovery services are -not- cheap, and the cost of having to employ one would likely exceed the cost of a good DLT or DAT tape system AND a disaster-recovery plan many times over.
IDE is bad enough (though I will freely admit to being a SCSI bigot). Using a drive with non-removable (and safely stashable) media for backup, on what will likely be a primary server, is darn near worse than no backup plan at all!
Even if this does turn out to be an R2 DVD, I'll order it anyway. Owners of Pioneer's DVL-909 or DV-505 players should definitely think about it as well, because there's a wonderful little mod you can do at this link:
This will, assuming you have the same firmware version as illustrated in the photos, render your player region-switchable via the remote. I did it to mine, and it worked fine.
WARNING! Do NOT attempt the mod unless you have the proper tools, including an anti-static work surface, temperature-controlled and grounded soldering station, AND the skill to use the above. It's pretty easy to screw your player up beyond any hope of home-hacking if you don't know what you're doing.
Another link:
http://www.codefreedvd.com/dvd_dvdplayers.htm
...has all kinds of info about region-independent DVD players and lots of other goodies.
Enjoy! I'll be looking forward to this one for sure.
For over a year, I had the "Office Megapack" or whatever the heck Qworst is calling it. This consisted of a single subnet of eight static IP's (five user-assignable), plus a bunch of E-mail and web-hosting features that I never used (because I'm self-hosted) but was still forced to pay for, and 512K down/272K up where line speed was concerned.
Despite the fact that, at that time, I ran several of my own servers I was still dependent on Qworst for my primary DNS. I didn't like the looks of their "partnership" with the Redmond Empire at all, even though I was repeatedly assured that it would not affect me.
I didn't want to take a chance, no matter what I was told, because I knew that partnering with Billy-boy and his gang would set a nasty precedent no matter what. I did some digging around, and found a nice, small, local ISP that, ironically enough, was a Qwest partner for DSL. The difference in price and service levels between the two were nothing short of shocking.
From Qwest: DSL line charge (base): $29.95/mo.
Five Static IP's: $14.95/Mo.
Qwest OfficePack ISP service, including multiple E-mail accounts and web hosting (neither of which I needed, but could not get out of): $34.95/mo.
In round numbers, this worked out to about $80/mo.
Now, compare that to Drizzle Internet. I still have the base DSL line charge of $29.95/mo., but I get six static IP's and no-frills/no-hassle service, AND they're Linux/BSD-friendly, for -- wait for it -- $22.50/mo.
This means that my total monthly for DSL service dropped to $52.45/mo. That's $300/year that goes back into my pocket, and better service to boot. The switchover was nearly flawless (just a minor bug in DNS authority, quickly and courteously corrected).
Granted, not everyone is going to be self-hosted. However, the point is clear: It's VERY possible to find other and better choices! Qworst is probably getting kickbacks from the Redmond Boys for not telling their DSL subscribers about them.
Drizzle's site is at http://www.drizzle.com if you're curious. They even have a link set up for those who are being forced to migrate to MSN or someone else at http://www.drizzle.com/dsl/dslexodus.html
No, I don't work for Drizzle. I'm just a very satisfied customer. I'm only sorry I don't know of small providers in other areas.
The ONLY E-mail I've ever gotten from Chinese netspace is spam. I've had the entire country firewalled out at the mail server level since last October because of the widespread infestation of both spammers and open mail relays.
Perhaps the "Great Firewall of China" is their way of reciprocating?;-)
First, assuming you have media merchants in your home town for DVD's, CD's, etc., don't you think they deserve your business before some faceless mail-order house?
Second, Amazon did not earn the nickname 'Spamazon' for nothing. They have a long history of spamming anyone who gives them an E-mail address. Just ask the folks on the Usenet group news.admin.net-abuse.email.
Mod this down if you want. I don't much care. Personally, though, you couldn't PAY me to buy it from Jeff Bezos and his spammish inquisition.
There's already been a thread about him on the Usenet group news.admin.net-abuse.email. He has no legal leg to stand on because, contrary to popular belief, the huge cluster of servers, routers, and other network goodies that make up the 'net are privately owned, not public property. Said owners have absolute authority to accept or reject whatever traffic they want on their respective networks and equipment.
In short: If they want to tell Bernie to bug off, and report his missives as spam (which they most certainly are if the recipients were not explicitly soliciting resumes for open positions, or if he did not call the recipient first to see if it was OK to send said resume), that's their option.
I hereby nominate Bernie for Kook-of-the-Month. Any seconds?
...of something I've believed since I started using the Internet in the mid-80's.
Specifically: Why the frell do we even NEED Flash or its brethren in any case? It seems to exist solely to make pretty pictures, and spew forth alleged "music" or other SFX, and waste a lot of bandwidth in the process.
Remember: If you cannot manage your native language well enough to get a CLEAR message across to your site's visitors in plain ASCII text, then NO amount of flashing fonts, pretty colors, bandwidth-hungry animations, or silly sound effects is going to help you in the least.
Don't even get me started about how precious few web sites are even usable by those who are vision-impaired, and need to use a text-to-speech converter on their computer. How many sites are in blatant violation of ADA accessibility guidelines even as I write this?
Web designers, take note: Sites today have entirely too much fluff, and far too little in terms of USEFUL and EASILY READABLE content. Remember that "simple" is NOT a bad thing. This latest virus serves only to emphasize that point.
...that this will be at all effective? Think about this:
First off, how many people are NOT running Lookout Distress or similar Gatesian Bloatware for their E-mail? Those who fall into this category WILL see the 'Magic Lantern' worm as an unexecuted file attachment, one that is likely to be quickly deleted.
Second: How long is it going to take the computing community "At Large" to dissect how ML or any other keyboard logger works, and come up with a very effective countermeasure?
Third: How long will it take seasoned criminals to grab said countermeasure? The ones that are computer-savvy can download and install just as well as any techie.
This whole exercise seems to be little more than useless window dressing to me. It almost looks like a (somewhat desperate) attempt by the FBI to fool the public into thinking they're effectively fighting terrorists when they may not have the slightest hint of a clue.
I don't pretend to have all the answers, but I really don't see what good monitoring Lord only knows how many computer keyboards will do. And how is a typical consumer, who can barely find their system's power switch, going to know if they're being monitored?
Mebi I will, and mebi I won't. Especially not if they're going to call it something that sounds like a preschooler's mispronunciation.
"More powerful" != "Better."
on
Gadgets of 2002
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
In their mad craze to make cellphones and other portable hardware smaller and lighter, manufacturers have forgotten two very critical things: (1), A great many of their potential users don't have fingers the size of Tinkerbell's, and (2); The vast majority of their potential users don't have eyes like an eagle's.
As it stands now, my own cellphone (a Motorola 'StarTac' 7868) is small enough that I keep hitting multiple keys when I'm trying to use it. Yes, I looked around for something bigger, with buttons and body sized to fit a guy with big hands, but noooooo -- everything else I found was so light and flimsy that I think even a midget would sneer at them.
Don't even get me started on functionality vs. fluff. When you start demanding that equipment do things that are not part of its intended basic purpose, then quality and durability of the device invariably suffer.
A good example of this is web-enabled cellphones. Who the frell wants to surf the web on a low-resolution dot-matrix LCD screen that's not even an inch and a half across? For that matter, why would anyone want to be so "wired" as to have a need to get to the web from their handheld in any case? The phones are enough of a distraction now without being 'net-ready. How many car accidents have been (rightfully) blamed on them to date?
Just because a manufacturer can do something with technology does not always mean that they should. Smaller, lighter, and more features that you'll never use does NOT mean "better." I think the manufacturers would do well to provide a lot less fluff and a lot more practicality and durability in their products.
As a hamateur radio person and SWL (short-wave listener), I have mixed feelings about webcasting. Sure, it's a great way to let those who don't have an appropriate HF receiver and long-wire antenna pick up the distant stations, but (as others have pointed out) there are bandwidth considerations to think about.
I've listened to more than a couple of canned webcasts from npr.org. Even with a high-bandwidth connection (DSL with 512K down), during the middle of the day on a summer weekend or near midnight in the middle of the week, I still got a lot of dropouts and pauses.
In the end, the result was little different from tuning into live BBC broadcasts on one of my HF receivers. Worse, in fact, because I found that I couldn't really do much else with my bandwidth while the stream was downloading (in all fairness, I get the same effect when I'm downloading big files).
I guess what I'm asking is: Would anyone really miss webcasting if it got reduced in scope, or even went away altogether? If the college stations mentioned still want to reach a larger audience, is there not some way for them to, perhaps, share the existing HF broadcast frequencies with our overseas neighbors?
Just a thought. Might not even be worth much, but I thought I'd ramble a bit...
>It's hard to beat a PC-based solution if you've >got a lot of customized and/or repetitive >measurement tasks.
I cannot agree. The only way to reasonably do this (I.E., make an O-scope out of a PC) is to put in a very expensive and high-end A/D card. By then, you've spent at least as much, if not more, than you would have for a very decent 'scope.
Even assuming you do stick in a high-end card, there are two factors still working heavily against you.
(1) Even the best non-O'scope A/D card has a bandwidth of about 100 KHz, and has a typical cost of around $1,000.
(2) The data-transfer load on the computer imposed by the A/D card is going to make said computer just about useless for any other task.
There is something to be said, I suppose, for PC-based O'scope cards, but I still don't think they'd be as good as a dedicated 'scope. Surplus analog or digital 'scopes are readily available, better built, better performing, and far cheaper.
If you're at all serious about building up your stash of test gear, the PC is just about the last place you want to look. Nothing it can ever do, even with add-in boards, will ever equal the quality of equipment that was made for the purpose you're trying to accomplish.
Others have pointed out that you should check out ham radio/electronic swap meets for a good used O-scope. This is an excellent idea. As far as that goes, I have some suggestions.
The Tektronix 7000 series, more notably the 7603, 7704, 7904, and 7104 are all some of the longest-lived and most durable instruments that Tek ever built. My personal unit is a 7904 (500 MHz basic bandwidth on the mainframe) with a whole raft of plug-ins. If I recall my specs correctly, the 7603 mainframe is rated at 100 MHz, the 7704 at 250, the 7904 at 500, and the 7104 at 1 GHz.
Keep in mind those are MAINFRAME bandwidths (top-end response for the mainframe IOW). You'll need appropriate plug-ins to take full advantage of that. Anyway, the 7000 series mainframes need a minimum of one time-base and one vertical amplifier plug-in to be useful. I would settle for nothing less than a 7A26 (200 MHz dual-trace) vertical module, and a 7B85 (time base) module. If you can, find a 7B92A for the time base and a 7904 or 7904A for the mainframe.
If you need REALLY high-frequency response on the vertical side, look for a 7A19 (single-trace, 50-ohm input, 1 GHz response). Bear in mind that you'll only get the full bandwidth from such in a 7104 mainframe (although you can use it in other mainframes at reduced bandwidth).
A word of caution on the 7104 mainframe, assuming you should choose it: Its CRT is more delicate than those of other Tek scopes, thanks to its extremely high writing speed, so be VERY careful to check it for screen burn.
If a portable 'scope is more to your liking, look around for a Tektronix 465, 475, 475A, or 485. Hard to go wrong with those, especially if you get one that has the DMM option.
Other sources for used Tek equipment include, of course, Ebay.
OTHER TEST GEAR: I suggest HP or Fluke for a multimeter. Fluke makes good stuff, especially older hardware, but HP's is easier to get calibrated. My own benchtop meter is an HP3456, backed up by a Fluke 8520.
POWER SUPPLIES: A good bench power supply is critical to any lab. HP, Kepco, and Lamda all make excellent units. Figure out what you're going to be working with and shop around.
As for more specialized stuff, I can't comment intelligently without knowing what specific sub-field you want to go into. There are different specialty instruments for RF, digital design, microwave, power supplies, etc.
Perhaps the best advice I can offer is ALWAYS get the best stuff that you can possibly afford. NEVER sell yourself short where your own test gear is concerned! Doing so -will- come back to haunt you later on.
Slashdot Mirror
Do I like my job? I honestly can't say that. It has its challenges, yes (I'm a Unix SysAdmin at a large aerospace company in the Pacific Northwest), but our corporate "leadership" is a joke, and the resultant lack of clue seems to flow down the pipe through all the levels of management we've got.
Why do I stay? Because, at least for now, one of the benefits is that they pay the full cost of my college tuition towards my EE degree. If that benefit went away, I would do everything I could to move on inside of a month.
So, I think I will stick around long enough to get my degree. Once that happens, I'll be out of there so fast that there'll be a soft 'boom!' from the imploding air left in my wake.
And you know what? I think that sucks. I think it sucks that any company big enough to be both engineer and factory just doesn't seem to want to do either one any more. I think it sucks that they don't seem to want to do much more than assemble parts that other companies build, just like a giant Heathkit (remember those?)
Then again, that's me. I'm not a high-(over?)paid corporate exec, so maybe it's not my place to understand these things. Maybe there's nothing to understand, and it just comes down to short-sighted greed.
Enough ranting. Good luck to the fellow at NASA. I hope things are at least better there than they are at my spot.
Geez... Take a chill-pill already!
I noticed this most angry post got moderated to "5: Insightful." Perhaps, given the tone, that should have been "InCITEful."
Background: I'm self-hosted (read: I run all my own servers -- mail, web, DNS, the works), so the only things I'm dependent on my ISP for are my DSL pipe, static IP's, and Usenet (the latter soon to change, once I set up NNTPCache locally). My ISP greatly appreciates this as I am pretty much zero drain on their support desk.
.cn, .kr, or .tw. Thanks to increasing spam from Mexico and Argentina, and equally clueless admins in both countries, I've also blocked the entire 200.0.0.0/8 subnet.
I used to complain to ISPs in China, Korea, Taiwan, and parts of South America (Argentina, notably) about their spammers, and their open relays. I kept giving them chance after chance to Do The Right Thing and Get A Clue.
Unfortunately, they never did. As of last October, I set up the 'Deny Access' listings on my mail servers to block traffic from any domain ending with
Did I want to do it? No! I have a regular customer in Chile (I opened a hole in the blocklist for their IP range), and I had (before I closed the metaphorical doors) gotten an occasional query from the Asian arena. Unfortunately, it was either run the risk of losing a little business or be deluged by spam. Guess what I chose?
If blocking that region is the only way to get some action, so that it'll be safe to UNblock in the future, great! So be it. I sympathize with those in the respective country who are caught in the crossfire, but I would also point out that those same folk are in an excellent position to put pressure on their local ISPs to cut the spammer's access. Permanently.
Until I see some clear evidence, preferably from indpendent sources, that the Asian arena is no longer a spam source, then it will remain blocked at my servers.
Dump a bunch of PDA's, no matter how cleverly designed, on a bunch of kids from all over the world, and the first question is very likely to be "What games can it run?"
Just as Cliff Stoll has so eloquently pointed out in his books ("Silicon Snake Oil" and "High-Tech Heretic"), learning to use technological gimmicks should be way down on the list of things that kids need to learn to function in the world.
I'm not stating that technology cannot be used as a teaching AID. It most certainly can! However, I think it's extremely important -- I would even say critical -- that your program emphasize (and, hopefully, teach!) the importance of critical thought, analysis skills, reading and writing, basic math, etc. BEFORE it teaches how to apply those skills with technological widgets.
In short: If you're going to do this, teach the kids that technology is a TOOL. Teach them that it is NOT, under ANY conditions, a substitute or crutch to replace the basic 'wetware' skills that we all need.
Should you believe otherwise, I would suggest that you take a look at any of the high-traffic Usenet discussion groups. Pay particular attention to the grammar, syntax, and spelling in the posts. With the obvious exception of those for whom English is not their native language, it's pretty easy to tell who knows how to use logic and language, and who does not.
Good luck.
...instead of taking the lazy (and dangerous) route of making the thing transformerless. Other than that, I have no complaints about it.
It would not have been hard to design a proper power supply for that clock. In fact, I question the designer's wisdom, maybe even their competence, in not going with said supply. Transformerless designs, I thought, went out with the old tube-type clock radios.
For those that are thinking of making the thing, I'd strongly suggest doing it right. You'll probably need a couple of amps worth of 5V, and the tubes should run on anything from +130-170VDC.
If you can't find an appropriate transformer that contains the requisite HV winding, try using two transformers: One for the low-V stuff, and the other being, say, a 12V filament transformer, wired such that the secondary winding is hooked to a 12V winding on the first transformer. The step-up effect should be enough to drive your tubes (you don't need a lot of current for Nixies).
I've seen the odd Bally machine that used the neon displays for scoring. Said displays are called 'PanaPlex,' and they were originally developed by Burroughs Corp.
They're kind of interesting in that they're nothing more than complex neon lamps. They consist of metal segments, laid out in the pattern of a seven or fifteen-segment display, sealed in a glass enclosure that contains (of course) neon. Apply about +130VDC to the common anode, and then ground the appropriate lead for the segment that you want to light up.
I don't see them much any more, at least not in pinball machines. The reason, I think, is that PanaPlex displays did not stand up to vibration and shock particularly well, and pinball machines dispense both in generous quantity.
For trivia buffs: There was one other type of vacuum display tube made that consisted of individual incandescent filaments, in the familiar seven-segment pattern, sealed into what looked for all the world like a standard miniature tube envelope. I don't recall who made them, but their trade name was 'Numitron.'
Anyone remember any more about them? The BART system in the Bay Area (California) had loads of them in their old ticket machines and other digital readouts, such as those used on the station agent consoles.
You wrote:
;-)
"Typically, members of the DMA aren't the problem. It's some fly-by-night outfit that is advertising Herbal Viagra or Hong Kong Vacation Discounts or whatever..."
You got it backwards. That's "Herbal Vacations" and "Hong Kong Viagra."
You're welcome.
IDE for the hard drive?
An additional hard drive for doing backups?
Geez... What if the "backup" drive fails with the last six months of critical accounting data on it? Data-recovery services are -not- cheap, and the cost of having to employ one would likely exceed the cost of a good DLT or DAT tape system AND a disaster-recovery plan many times over.
IDE is bad enough (though I will freely admit to being a SCSI bigot). Using a drive with non-removable (and safely stashable) media for backup, on what will likely be a primary server, is darn near worse than no backup plan at all!
...with the right DVD player. ;-)
h tm
Even if this does turn out to be an R2 DVD, I'll order it anyway. Owners of Pioneer's DVL-909 or DV-505 players should definitely think about it as well, because there's a wonderful little mod you can do at this link:
http://www.home-cinema.de/DVD_codefree/pioneer.
This will, assuming you have the same firmware version as illustrated in the photos, render your player region-switchable via the remote. I did it to mine, and it worked fine.
WARNING! Do NOT attempt the mod unless you have the proper tools, including an anti-static work surface, temperature-controlled and grounded soldering station, AND the skill to use the above. It's pretty easy to screw your player up beyond any hope of home-hacking if you don't know what you're doing.
Another link:
http://www.codefreedvd.com/dvd_dvdplayers.htm
...has all kinds of info about region-independent DVD players and lots of other goodies.
Enjoy! I'll be looking forward to this one for sure.
For over a year, I had the "Office Megapack" or whatever the heck Qworst is calling it. This consisted of a single subnet of eight static IP's (five user-assignable), plus a bunch of E-mail and web-hosting features that I never used (because I'm self-hosted) but was still forced to pay for, and 512K down/272K up where line speed was concerned.
Despite the fact that, at that time, I ran several of my own servers I was still dependent on Qworst for my primary DNS. I didn't like the looks of their "partnership" with the Redmond Empire at all, even though I was repeatedly assured that it would not affect me.
I didn't want to take a chance, no matter what I was told, because I knew that partnering with Billy-boy and his gang would set a nasty precedent no matter what. I did some digging around, and found a nice, small, local ISP that, ironically enough, was a Qwest partner for DSL. The difference in price and service levels between the two were nothing short of shocking.
From Qwest: DSL line charge (base): $29.95/mo.
Five Static IP's: $14.95/Mo.
Qwest OfficePack ISP service, including multiple E-mail accounts and web hosting (neither of which I needed, but could not get out of): $34.95/mo.
In round numbers, this worked out to about $80/mo.
Now, compare that to Drizzle Internet. I still have the base DSL line charge of $29.95/mo., but I get six static IP's and no-frills/no-hassle service, AND they're Linux/BSD-friendly, for -- wait for it -- $22.50/mo.
This means that my total monthly for DSL service dropped to $52.45/mo. That's $300/year that goes back into my pocket, and better service to boot. The switchover was nearly flawless (just a minor bug in DNS authority, quickly and courteously corrected).
Granted, not everyone is going to be self-hosted. However, the point is clear: It's VERY possible to find other and better choices! Qworst is probably getting kickbacks from the Redmond Boys for not telling their DSL subscribers about them.
Drizzle's site is at http://www.drizzle.com if you're curious. They even have a link set up for those who are being forced to migrate to MSN or someone else at http://www.drizzle.com/dsl/dslexodus.html
No, I don't work for Drizzle. I'm just a very satisfied customer. I'm only sorry I don't know of small providers in other areas.
Ya know, considering the microphone in the headboard, I guess this adds a whole new twist to the saying "Don't let the bed bugs bite."
;-)
You may all groan now...
The ONLY E-mail I've ever gotten from Chinese netspace is spam. I've had the entire country firewalled out at the mail server level since last October because of the widespread infestation of both spammers and open mail relays.
;-)
Perhaps the "Great Firewall of China" is their way of reciprocating?
...(Sp)Amazon, please, for two reasons.
First, assuming you have media merchants in your home town for DVD's, CD's, etc., don't you think they deserve your business before some faceless mail-order house?
Second, Amazon did not earn the nickname 'Spamazon' for nothing. They have a long history of spamming anyone who gives them an E-mail address. Just ask the folks on the Usenet group news.admin.net-abuse.email.
Mod this down if you want. I don't much care. Personally, though, you couldn't PAY me to buy it from Jeff Bezos and his spammish inquisition.
Does this REALLY surprise anyone?
There's already been a thread about him on the Usenet group news.admin.net-abuse.email. He has no legal leg to stand on because, contrary to popular belief, the huge cluster of servers, routers, and other network goodies that make up the 'net are privately owned, not public property. Said owners have absolute authority to accept or reject whatever traffic they want on their respective networks and equipment.
In short: If they want to tell Bernie to bug off, and report his missives as spam (which they most certainly are if the recipients were not explicitly soliciting resumes for open positions, or if he did not call the recipient first to see if it was OK to send said resume), that's their option.
I hereby nominate Bernie for Kook-of-the-Month. Any seconds?
It sounds vaguely naughty. Is it something one can do in public without getting arrested or heckled?
I think they meant to say 'gauging.' Simple (and easy-to-do) transposition.
...of something I've believed since I started using the Internet in the mid-80's.
Specifically: Why the frell do we even NEED Flash or its brethren in any case? It seems to exist solely to make pretty pictures, and spew forth alleged "music" or other SFX, and waste a lot of bandwidth in the process.
Remember: If you cannot manage your native language well enough to get a CLEAR message across to your site's visitors in plain ASCII text, then NO amount of flashing fonts, pretty colors, bandwidth-hungry animations, or silly sound effects is going to help you in the least.
Don't even get me started about how precious few web sites are even usable by those who are vision-impaired, and need to use a text-to-speech converter on their computer. How many sites are in blatant violation of ADA accessibility guidelines even as I write this?
Web designers, take note: Sites today have entirely too much fluff, and far too little in terms of USEFUL and EASILY READABLE content. Remember that "simple" is NOT a bad thing. This latest virus serves only to emphasize that point.
...that this will be at all effective? Think about this:
First off, how many people are NOT running Lookout Distress or similar Gatesian Bloatware for their E-mail? Those who fall into this category WILL see the 'Magic Lantern' worm as an unexecuted file attachment, one that is likely to be quickly deleted.
Second: How long is it going to take the computing community "At Large" to dissect how ML or any other keyboard logger works, and come up with a very effective countermeasure?
Third: How long will it take seasoned criminals to grab said countermeasure? The ones that are computer-savvy can download and install just as well as any techie.
This whole exercise seems to be little more than useless window dressing to me. It almost looks like a (somewhat desperate) attempt by the FBI to fool the public into thinking they're effectively fighting terrorists when they may not have the slightest hint of a clue.
I don't pretend to have all the answers, but I really don't see what good monitoring Lord only knows how many computer keyboards will do. And how is a typical consumer, who can barely find their system's power switch, going to know if they're being monitored?
Mebi I will, and mebi I won't. Especially not if they're going to call it something that sounds like a preschooler's mispronunciation.
In their mad craze to make cellphones and other portable hardware smaller and lighter, manufacturers have forgotten two very critical things: (1), A great many of their potential users don't have fingers the size of Tinkerbell's, and (2); The vast majority of their potential users don't have eyes like an eagle's.
As it stands now, my own cellphone (a Motorola 'StarTac' 7868) is small enough that I keep hitting multiple keys when I'm trying to use it. Yes, I looked around for something bigger, with buttons and body sized to fit a guy with big hands, but noooooo -- everything else I found was so light and flimsy that I think even a midget would sneer at them.
Don't even get me started on functionality vs. fluff. When you start demanding that equipment do things that are not part of its intended basic purpose, then quality and durability of the device invariably suffer.
A good example of this is web-enabled cellphones. Who the frell wants to surf the web on a low-resolution dot-matrix LCD screen that's not even an inch and a half across? For that matter, why would anyone want to be so "wired" as to have a need to get to the web from their handheld in any case? The phones are enough of a distraction now without being 'net-ready. How many car accidents have been (rightfully) blamed on them to date?
Just because a manufacturer can do something with technology does not always mean that they should. Smaller, lighter, and more features that you'll never use does NOT mean "better." I think the manufacturers would do well to provide a lot less fluff and a lot more practicality and durability in their products.
As a hamateur radio person and SWL (short-wave listener), I have mixed feelings about webcasting. Sure, it's a great way to let those who don't have an appropriate HF receiver and long-wire antenna pick up the distant stations, but (as others have pointed out) there are bandwidth considerations to think about.
I've listened to more than a couple of canned webcasts from npr.org. Even with a high-bandwidth connection (DSL with 512K down), during the middle of the day on a summer weekend or near midnight in the middle of the week, I still got a lot of dropouts and pauses.
In the end, the result was little different from tuning into live BBC broadcasts on one of my HF receivers. Worse, in fact, because I found that I couldn't really do much else with my bandwidth while the stream was downloading (in all fairness, I get the same effect when I'm downloading big files).
I guess what I'm asking is: Would anyone really miss webcasting if it got reduced in scope, or even went away altogether? If the college stations mentioned still want to reach a larger audience, is there not some way for them to, perhaps, share the existing HF broadcast frequencies with our overseas neighbors?
Just a thought. Might not even be worth much, but I thought I'd ramble a bit...
I never said they weren't. However, "slow" is the operative word. It sounds like you have a good application for a PC, and that it works well for you.
HOWEVER -- Try to capture a fast-rising, nanosecond-long DC glitch in a digital circuit with that soundcard and PC. I don't think so!
>It's hard to beat a PC-based solution if you've >got a lot of customized and/or repetitive >measurement tasks.
I cannot agree. The only way to reasonably do this (I.E., make an O-scope out of a PC) is to put in a very expensive and high-end A/D card. By then, you've spent at least as much, if not more, than you would have for a very decent 'scope.
Even assuming you do stick in a high-end card, there are two factors still working heavily against you.
(1) Even the best non-O'scope A/D card has a bandwidth of about 100 KHz, and has a typical cost of around $1,000.
(2) The data-transfer load on the computer imposed by the A/D card is going to make said computer just about useless for any other task.
There is something to be said, I suppose, for PC-based O'scope cards, but I still don't think they'd be as good as a dedicated 'scope. Surplus analog or digital 'scopes are readily available, better built, better performing, and far cheaper.
If you're at all serious about building up your stash of test gear, the PC is just about the last place you want to look. Nothing it can ever do, even with add-in boards, will ever equal the quality of equipment that was made for the purpose you're trying to accomplish.
Others have pointed out that you should check out ham radio/electronic swap meets for a good used O-scope. This is an excellent idea. As far as that goes, I have some suggestions.
The Tektronix 7000 series, more notably the 7603, 7704, 7904, and 7104 are all some of the longest-lived and most durable instruments that Tek ever built. My personal unit is a 7904 (500 MHz basic bandwidth on the mainframe) with a whole raft of plug-ins. If I recall my specs correctly, the 7603 mainframe is rated at 100 MHz, the 7704 at 250, the 7904 at 500, and the 7104 at 1 GHz.
Keep in mind those are MAINFRAME bandwidths (top-end response for the mainframe IOW). You'll need appropriate plug-ins to take full advantage of that. Anyway, the 7000 series mainframes need a minimum of one time-base and one vertical amplifier plug-in to be useful. I would settle for nothing less than a 7A26 (200 MHz dual-trace) vertical module, and a 7B85 (time base) module. If you can, find a 7B92A for the time base and a 7904 or 7904A for the mainframe.
If you need REALLY high-frequency response on the vertical side, look for a 7A19 (single-trace, 50-ohm input, 1 GHz response). Bear in mind that you'll only get the full bandwidth from such in a 7104 mainframe (although you can use it in other mainframes at reduced bandwidth).
A word of caution on the 7104 mainframe, assuming you should choose it: Its CRT is more delicate than those of other Tek scopes, thanks to its extremely high writing speed, so be VERY careful to check it for screen burn.
If a portable 'scope is more to your liking, look around for a Tektronix 465, 475, 475A, or 485. Hard to go wrong with those, especially if you get one that has the DMM option.
Other sources for used Tek equipment include, of course, Ebay.
OTHER TEST GEAR: I suggest HP or Fluke for a multimeter. Fluke makes good stuff, especially older hardware, but HP's is easier to get calibrated. My own benchtop meter is an HP3456, backed up by a Fluke 8520.
POWER SUPPLIES: A good bench power supply is critical to any lab. HP, Kepco, and Lamda all make excellent units. Figure out what you're going to be working with and shop around.
As for more specialized stuff, I can't comment intelligently without knowing what specific sub-field you want to go into. There are different specialty instruments for RF, digital design, microwave, power supplies, etc.
Perhaps the best advice I can offer is ALWAYS get the best stuff that you can possibly afford. NEVER sell yourself short where your own test gear is concerned! Doing so -will- come back to haunt you later on.
It -can't- be a pop quiz because you didn't include a 'pop' instruction. ;-)