I'd start off with "technical writer". This means I understand your role in the process. Therefore it is unlikely that I can help you now determine what a person would search for if they didn't know what they really wanted. Which is what you seem to be after. Sort of a "Dummies guide to making stuff people won't read about my cool project/product/website"
However, as an engineer, lack of stupid has never prevented me from attempting to pretend to that blessed state, so:
I'd search by using the terms of what you 'sell', or the expected output of your work:
Document, manual, quick start guide, etc.
Then I'd move on to what kind of work I expect you to be doing:
Editor, editing, illustration, diagram, explanation, explain, etc.
Then I'd write it myself, pass it around to my friends, and focus on making a better product instead of paying someone to do something that I, a stupid person, could easily and readily do.
Quite frankly, however, I'd suggest that you carfully choose how to represent yourself. If you really want to work with people who have now idea how you fit into their process, you're only going to make your job very hard, and typically (unless you can truly educate them so they understand your value) they won't want to pay you what you're worth.
Take it slow, and go for those people who know what role you are going to play. There's still a ton of work you'll need to do in educating even these customers, but you'll find yourself spending more time working on the project than working on the customer.
If there's a true need for it, won't the market fulfil the need?
Not if the need is to help building the great wall of France. Please note that there are certain types of websites one cannot host in France, and companies such as Ebay cannot allow users located in France to even see certain types of auctions.
The government may have a compelling need that the market will never fill.
Whip out that Windows Install CD and tell it in a nasty voice that you could easily slide the CD in its virginal slot and have its hardware rooted by every little hacker
As we can all see clearly now, and what Apple knew when they made their choice was that dollar for dollar, Intel processors perform better than what IBM was supplying Apple. IBM had no competitor for their processor, and no one purchased enough of them to make it worth IBM's time to improve it as much as Intel and AMD have improved their processors.
It's obvious really. Apple has enough other features to offer customers that a significant performance gap can occur before it becomes a major issue with customers, but ultimately the gap was going to widen enough to cause exactly that situation.
Apple is not an inconsequential customer. Your statement reflects reality, though: "The 'customer' who didn't command enough volume to get what they wanted from IBM's OEM processor business." What they wanted was a better performance/cost ratio. Neither IBM nor Apple could change in such a way that it would have been profitable for either to invest enough money into the PowerPC to bring it on par with Intel's offerings. If Apple sold as many computers as Intel sells P4s, then yes, the PowerPC could have made enough money to keep itself on par with the P4.
However, that doesn't mean that their volume is so low that it is inconsequential to Intel, and it does measurably impact other OEMs sourcing Intel chips.
Further, Intel can breath a small sigh of relief - they don't depend quite so heavily on windows. Further, their newest customer is even less likely to move to AMD than Dell.
Yes, this is the usual course of action. However, Intel has recently obtained another largish customer, and Dell has measurably (not significantly, but measurably) less bargaining power in this situation.
It is unlikely that Dell will use AMD processors anytime soon. The bulk orders they place with Intel lower costs enough that if they decide to offer both processors then they will likely end up paying the same or more - it won't decrease the overall cost of their computers, nor increase their revenue.
As you pointed out, though, about once a year this noise is made, and both parties reevaluate their multi-year agreements and wonder if now is the time to move.
USB 2.0 comes practically free with any modern chipset. Firewire does not. A good firewire interface will take 2-3 sq inches of PCB realestate, and add $1-2 to the total cost. The only area where firewire gained some market hold was with digital video cameras, and those now include USB 2.0. Lastly, very few pieces of equipment can even use firewire 800 to it's fullest. USB 2.0 is cheap enough and fast enough to do 99% of what needs to get done. Further you don't have as much customer confusion between ports and cable types and powered vs unpowered ports.
So all that means is that there's a very small slice of people who need firewire for which USB cannot work. They can get a card in the laptop, and Apple can save a few dollars per Mac.
Those who complain about it most are usually doing so for emotional reasons more than logical reasons. Much like those complaining that the new notebook should be referred to as a "Powerbook." They like Apple; Apple came out with firewire; ergo they like firewire. Nevermind that few new peripherals support firewire, and even fewer support only firwire and not USB. Nevermind that similar USB only peripherals are generally cheaper and perform as well as if not better than the equivilant firewire peripheral. Firewire lost in the market. Apple has acknowledged that. Let's move on.
Oh, and that magnetic no-trip power cord... that's just slick apple engineering right there.
And is also available on many kitchen counter-top fryers. I applaud Apple for applying this safety technology to their products - but let's keep things in perspective.
Really slick engineering would be putting the powerbrick inside the laptop, with one connector for AC, vehicle, airplane, etc power, and a single cable with a few cable ends depending on the source.
Nuclear power is not what it used to be in the 70s and 80s. The reactors are quite safe nowadays, especialy the N-type (which the Chinese are also developing).
That's because one of the primary goals of a nuclear reactor in the 70's and 80's was to help produce nuclear grade weapons material. That's the reason reactors are built the way they are, and the waste is so dangerous. Most of the heavily funded research was for reactors capable of producing byproduct that could be used in weapons.
If the goal of a reactor is not to produce weapons grade material, then it will not only be safer, but produce less dangerous waste.
At least, this is my understanding of the whys and hows of nuclear energy. We don't build them as much these days because they really have to be subsidized to be built, and the financier (gov't) doesn't need them any longer.
First, they are essentially the same technology, simply tweaked to squeeze out more storage space and using a different wavelength of laser. This is hardly technology that required billions or even millions of R&D costs. Like the original DVD player and is close ties to CD technology, HD-DVD is just an extension, not an evolution of DVD technology. Thus, we shouldn't have to pay a huge premium for it.
Essentially the same technology, simply tweaked? Right.
First of all, until mass manufacturing kicks in, it isn't going to be a $20 transport. The HD in your computer has a hard enough time encoding gigabytes per square inch, and you never remove the disk.
Tracking on a DVD is hard enough on a rock stable platform. Now imagine that the player is experiencing vibration, and the disk is not perfectly flat, and you can compare it to flying a jet plane a few feet from the ground with a fixed focus camera, adjusting the height of the plane based on the 1 inch wide tape on the ground below. You have to stay on the same tape, even though there are parallel runs of tape closely spaced together. You have to ignore trees (scratches) which completely obscure your tape and all 50-500 adjacent tapes for hundreds of feet, and pick up the same tape you were previously following. Oh, and while you're at it, every inch of tape is either light grey, or dark grey, so translate that into a coherent data stream. Ignore the semi-transparent but otherwise identical tape strips located 1 foot above the strips on the ground. Unless we want the data off those strips, then ignore the ground strips.
Now fly a little closer, and track 0.1" wide tape. And the tape is much closer to adjacent tape strips. And the equipment vibration is still present. And the disk is still not flat. And the trees are just as large. And fly a bit faster, too, while you're at it.
I haven't researched the physical parameters of the media, but this should give you some idea of what's actually involved. DVD transports are cheap because they are very precise mechanisms with very advanced electronics made by the millions. The first transports were huge due to vibration damping, and in some cases actively balancing the disk while it was spinning. As electronics have advanced and the laser/lens servos have become more responsive, much of this was taken care of. With the newer disks the problems are exponentially worse, so even though the solutions have become better, they are still not "simple tweaks". Yes, eventually the price will drop - but only due to mass manufacturing of the transports. It will take 2-3 years to ramp up and improve the technology. If you can wait that long, great, you're all set.
The main difference is the body style and bumper height. The bumpers for minivans are close to or at the height required for passenger vehicles. This results in crashes that are much different than an SUV crash. Further, the center of gravity is lower on a minivan than an SUV, though not a lot.
Of course, one can always mine the data oneself. The query function is fairly easy to use.
If we're going to make a 0.81% BAC illegal (and punish it with major fines), should we not also have the same punishments for driving while having the sniffles, or while being 51?
No. Typically people do not have much choice over whether they're sick or over 50. They do have a choice over their drug/alcohol intake. The sleep one is a bit harder, but they can occasionally be prosecuted under driving while impaired type laws depending on the circumstances. Since BAC is much easier to measure with certianty, and is an active choice the driver makes, then it makes sense to restrict it and prosecute it.
I'd be interested in seeing a link to the study that shows a cold, poor nights sleep, or 50+ age have the same effects as 0.08% BAC.
How detailed a record of file use does NTFS or WinXP keep?
Pretty detailed. User account, time at a minimum.
Can you really show what files were accessed during a one-hour time span seven days ago?
Yes.
Above and beyond the 'last modified' date?
Yes.
On a read/write/execute basis?
In a roundabout fashion. I'm not as familiar with NTFS as I would need to be to give a good yes or no or yes with limitations. It keeps records of modification (write) and access (read) so the only unknown is whether one could tell if a file was merely read or executed. It is a journalling file system, so depending on how exactly it performs journalling, it may even be possible to find out which parts of a file were modified in the case of writes. This is less likely as journal records are, presumably, overwritten with new records over a short period of time.
Accessed by the system or by a user?
If I remember correctly, NTFS does record the date of creation, modification, and access with the user performing each action. Many "system" actions are performed in the user's name since, technically, the user is running the system program.
Do commercial burning programs keep a record of burn jobs they've performed?
Many programs do keep a short log of actions. They won't necessarily detail files involved, though. You'll be lucky if such a log tells you how much data was written to the disk in MB. This might actually be just as useful.
Does the CD drive itself have any appreciable nonvolatile cache?
No.
Is there any other general insight applicable to this situation?
Yes:
Person B hires a computer forensics 'expert', who claims that Person A accessed something like 3000 files during the 1 hour time span in question, when Person A was burning files to CD.
This points to a very simple search of all files modified, accessed, or created during that time period. Please note that this could indicate a virus scanner or system backup utility running in the backup as much as it indicates a cd writing program. Viruses can also exhibit this behavior. Try to find out how many files were accessed in the previous 24 hours before this particular hour, and the following 24 hours. It could be that every hour during that time had several thousand files uniquely accessed.
Person A primarily wants to prove that the data he turned over on CD was the only data he took, approximately 50 word/excel type files, which we will assume to be true.
Quite frankly, if he needed 6 CDs to burn 50 word/excel files... well, let's just say that you should explain to him that you try to assume nothing so that you can have the best view of the facts.
Also note that if data backups are made of the computer on a daily/weekly/regular basis, it may be that one can use those to show useful data about your client's use of the computer. An interesting tactic would be for your client's attornies to request a detailed log of computer use for the week previous and the week following the incident to establish a pattern of use. Request all possible backups. Request... well, everything. The attorney will know what you mean.
Lastly, keep in mind that your client has already 'confessed' - the only thing left to determine is not whether he is guilty, but how guilty. Chances are good that even if he didn't do more than he says he will have a hard time proving that he has fully complied.
Lastly: Don't become personally involved, or emotionally invested. Your client will be, and he may even be pulling you into it without knowing it. Understand that anything you say to him may be used in any forthcoming legal case, and you may find yourself more involved than you desire to be.
It is likely that your system fails to boot up because a stupid driver is tryting to read a log file or data file that it keeps freeking open all the time when running
BAD DRIVER! BAD! BAD! NO COOKIE FOR YOU!
Your mission, should you choose to accept it, is to hunt this driver down, and without mercy destroy it!
One path you might take to begin this task is to install plain vanilla windows without any drivers - don't even think about using the windows disk that came from Gateway!. Now unplug the computer while it's running. Does it boot up? Good! That's because the default drivers included in Windows are, generally speaking (and almost miraculously) fairly safe drivers to use.
Now at this point you might think, "Hey, I want to install all that other junk that came with my computer that I never use!" TRY to suppress that urge. If you can possibly live without it, then don't install it. Go to the individual manufacturer websites of the devices which do not perform adequately with the plain vanilla install of windows. This might include chipset, sound, graphics. Install them and do the unplug test with each of them.
This should resolve your problems, as long as you don't install any drivers you don't absolutely need that windows doesn't come with.
If you exhibit a desire for a higher performance system and start installing the other latest drivers from either gateway or the manufacturer for devices that windows provides a decent driver for - please step away from the computer. Close your eyes, take a deep breath and calmly propel you head backwards into the floor. When you awaken, your mind will be clear, and this thought will be foremost, "If I wanted a performance computer I could tweak that I could also use on a daily basis, I wouldn't have purchased a boxed system."
who in their right mind sees it necessary to put critical systems online?
The internet itself is considered a critical system. As valuable (perhaps more) as the telephone and electricity utilities.
What is concerning to many is another Morris internet worm or a similar crash of the internet. Take the recent cisco bugs - these make up a significant portion of internet routing capability. Should someone succeed in developing a cisco worm that infects even 5% of the cisco routers (specifically the "big iron" type routers at major peering points) then the internet will instantly become fairly useless. It will take hours, days, and weeks to get it working well again.
Such a hit to the internet would significantly affect the economy. Further, the entire internet would feel the effects of more stringent regulation.
It's not the simple hacks that people are concerned about. Just like an earthquake, a significant event is going to occur without warning - how can it not happen? If you believe it won't happen, then one of the following must be true:
1) You believe there are no significant enough security problems in routers/computers/etc to cause such a major fracture or
2) You believe that those individuals and organizations who have the ability to target such security problems will choose not to do so.
Can you safely make both assumptions? If so, I suspect you overestimate human nature.
It may be useful to note that the US government will treat a catastrophic internet event in the same manner as they would a catastrophic attack on the telephone, electric, or even road infrastructure.
The difference is that the internet is much, much more vulnerable. The point of penetration can be continents apart from ground zero - and homeland security isn't scanning packets for proper visas.
It's been awhile since I've studied firewire, but as far as I recall it's a relatively simple packet based protocol.
I don't see why a common firewire card couldn't be used to snoop on the traffic on a bus. Because of the way endpoints and bus controllers are determined, and how data flows you may have to be careful about the placement of the snooping computer on the bus.
The real trick is getting the chipset datasheet from the manufacturer.
Have things really gotten to the point when everytime we don't like a product we sue the manufacturer?
Apparantly.
What happened to the days when if a product wasn't what we expected it to be we simply told our friends not to buy one and didn't buy from that manufacturer again?
It's not as profitable.
Are companies required to produce products that every single person in the world likes otherwise be victims of a lawsuit?
Yes. If you have a company and expect never to get sued, you are suffering under a rather severe delusion.
Are standard defects valid causes for suits?
Moreso than it used to be.
We (well Slashdot population) all know that no process is 100% defect free, even a 6 sigma process still has 3.4 defects per million opportunities. Are we that litigious?
Apparantly. Please understand that it doesn't matter what the defect rate is for the manufacturer. If I buy a product and it fails, the defect rate, as far as I'm concerned, is 100%. If I can't get an immediate replacement then the manufacturer has done something wrong. In this case, buying an xbox360, due to customer demand, is like playing the lottery. I pay $umpteen hundred dollars for a 4 in 5 chance that I'll get a working product at the time of purchase. Doesn't sound like a good bet? What if your intention was not to bet in the first place? You were buying something, and then it was swapped for a risky bet instead.
The real problem is that MS made an error in design or selection of components. If this guy was the only one to complain, he wouldn't have filed. Since he notices that this problem is systemic, then it's more likely a design or selection issue than a one-off fault.
How long before someone sues a restaurant because their steak was medium instead of medium rare?
Notice how steak houses used to "Guarantee" that your steak will be done just right, and how you can't find anything like that anymore? Guess why?
The reason why this seems more prevalent now than it used to be is the amplifying effect of the internet. One bad xbox per 100 xboxs sold wouldn't make the news or TV due to the wide geographic distribution. However if 50 people complain all over the internet then it becomes a big issue, despite 10,000 that are happy.
Yes, and I'm relatively certian there are no RFID tags embedded in US currency. If there were, then there would be a charred spot when one note was microwaved by itself. Instead the person carrying out the experiment had to stack them.
There are metal bits embedded in currency, which form antennas in various configurations. These could be termed RF sensitive, and I suppose they could even be considered a cheap form of RFID if one can determine the note value by the placement or resonance of the antenna, but I doubt they are serialized and could be used to identify a particular note.
RFID capable of giving the required 32 bits or more of serialization needs a microchip and a coil. Either of which would be easily identifiable - if not by eye then by microscope.
However, cash can be tracked - each bill is serial numbered, and I'm certain that money counting equipment exists to read that number. I just doubt it's in widespread use. Stores certianly wouldn't track serial numbers for each transaction - the clerks would have to pass each bill through a reader as they receive it and dispense it. I doubt that cash makes up enough of their transactions to be worth the time and resources.
Having a 45x microscope, two new twenty dollar bills, and a microwave handy my coworker and I studied the bills, microwaved them, and studied them again. There is no way that there's any conventional antenna, coil or semiconductor embedded in the bill. There was no change to the bill after microwaving it for over 10 seconds, except normal (expected) heating. I imagine the ink, not the paper, was absorbing most of the radiation, and this might explain why a stack of 20s is required to duplicate the experiment. The ink seems to have more coverage around the head, but the particular location of the burn is more likely due to the microwave forming a standing RF wave in that spot, rather than the bill being more likely to heat up in that spot than any other.
So: Yes, I've heard about the "RFID Tags in New US Notes" and, as an engineer, remain unconvinced. If money is trackable per bill via non-contact and non-visual means, then it is not used at the checkout, and is unlikely to be used in the backroom, which means that it still doesn't narrow down the field when searching for someone stealing from a store using this scheme.
Further, if there were an RFID tag in our currency, conventional or not, then it would have been found and published by now. I doubt the government is interested in tracking individual bills for any reason other than to catch counterfeit bills.
unless you have the private key of the transmitter, or have some high-tech spy equipment that can capture the entire negotiation stream between the transmitter and target to crack it later... and the cost of doing either of these things would be prohibitive to anyone who wants to make money off shoplifting (you'd be better off planning a bank robbery).
False. The stores aren't going to spend more than a penny or so per tag, and the tags will not be encrypted. They will have individual id numbers, though, and these will be stored in a database - much like a serial number. So you'll have to scan an existing unsold item in the store and duplicate that tag onto your target item. This is going to be difficult and expensive, since you have to disable the existing tag (inside the packaging) and add your own tag in an unobtrusive manner.
It is harder than barcodes, which anyone can print from their own computer. But I doubt retailers are going to be employing anything more than the simplest 64 or 128 bit ID. These can still be duplicated with a simple circuit (coil, a few passives, maybe a tiny battery) and microcontroller. Should be small enough to fit under a sticker: "New! Improved!" or "2 Year Warranty!" or "Newspeak V5.2 Included!"
The real deterrent is that when they scan the item you stole the tag from, they'll notice it's been sold, and a stock check will show up the missing item you stole. Since they are tagged with serial numbers they can track down your transaction. With even the time, date, and cash register number they'll be able to pull up camera footage if you were smart enough to pay cash. If not then they'll have lots of electronic information about your CC, debit card, or check to track you down with.
The biggest advantage to using RFID is not easier and more accurate scanning, it's that every item in the store now has a serial number and exists in the database. Better stock control will improve the bottom line - this is Walmart's biggest strength. If everyone goes to RFID then Walmart will have many more significant competitors since a lot of the operation they've worked so hard on is built into the whole RFID system. Perhaps one reason why they aren't pushing it so hard.
Simply force every website that has XXX material on it to register an additional.xxx domain for each of their IP addresses.
Filtering then becomes simple: Take IP address, do reverse domain matching on it through.xxx, if it comes back then that IP has a much greater chance of containing xxx material than one that doesn't.
Ok, so there's justification for not using a high end processor (offloading most processing to other components), but then they go ahead and drop in a a $330 dual core CPU. I think the only justification to pick this CPU is for the 'geek factor'.
In this case this is very appropiate. They had two HDTV tuners and two analog tuners. The HDTV tuners consume nearly 20Mbps each, while the analogs go up to 12Mbps. The CPU is doing a ton of work when recording 64Mbps of data to the hard drive - in fact, they indicated that the system really wasn't reacting well to other user actions while it was recording from all four tuners at once. It is likely that they couldn't have recorded from two and watched another at once.
The dual core was a good choice, despite the lack of qualification. There are other system bottlenecks, and I suspect that they would have a better system if they went with a single core and spent the additional money on a striped raid and huge cache, extremely low latency hard drives to improve HD throughput. In a system like this you want to be able to write 64Mbps to the HD (not sequentially) and read 20Mbps simultaneously.
I am merely pointing out what appears to be your unwarranted, blind faith in the infallability of free market and an out-of-hand dismissal of a possibililty of seismic shifts in the way of life of hundreds of millions of people, all of which can have far ranging effects well beyond the scope of pure economics, and with which the free markets are completely unequipped to deal with.
???
Suppose, for a moment, that I'm naive. I'm looking at the problem from a very simplistic perspective.
What exactly do you mean that economics can't handle "seismic shifts in the way of life for millions of people"?
Are you saying that our economy will collapse because the academic field of economics doesn't have a good model for such "seismic shifts"?
Did the world survive before plastics? Yes.
Are we able to produce plastics without oil? Yes, with some limitations.
Are we able to produce fuel without oil? Yes.
Are there other sources for chemicals we currently extract from oil? Yes, with some limitations.
Quite frankly, I don't see the problem. Oil will become gradually more expensive, cheaper replacements will be substituted, and the economy will change.
Why is it that people treat the economy as though it's so fragile? Of course it's going to change, quite drastically. We will certianly have some drastic changes in the economy. Complaining about the oil supply changing the economy is like complaining about company pension plans disappearing affecting the economy. Of course they did, and quite drastically. We live in a completely different economy because few companies supply pension plans.
But of all the people crying chicken little about oil, I haven't seen a single one describe what exactly are the calamatous effects of "peak oil".
So perhaps you can explain to me how this will affect the economy, and why this particular challenge is so much worse than previous changes.
Slashdot Mirror
I'd start off with "technical writer". This means I understand your role in the process. Therefore it is unlikely that I can help you now determine what a person would search for if they didn't know what they really wanted. Which is what you seem to be after. Sort of a "Dummies guide to making stuff people won't read about my cool project/product/website"
However, as an engineer, lack of stupid has never prevented me from attempting to pretend to that blessed state, so:
I'd search by using the terms of what you 'sell', or the expected output of your work:
Document, manual, quick start guide, etc.
Then I'd move on to what kind of work I expect you to be doing:
Editor, editing, illustration, diagram, explanation, explain, etc.
Then I'd write it myself, pass it around to my friends, and focus on making a better product instead of paying someone to do something that I, a stupid person, could easily and readily do.
Quite frankly, however, I'd suggest that you carfully choose how to represent yourself. If you really want to work with people who have now idea how you fit into their process, you're only going to make your job very hard, and typically (unless you can truly educate them so they understand your value) they won't want to pay you what you're worth.
Take it slow, and go for those people who know what role you are going to play. There's still a ton of work you'll need to do in educating even these customers, but you'll find yourself spending more time working on the project than working on the customer.
-Adam
If there's a true need for it, won't the market fulfil the need?
Not if the need is to help building the great wall of France. Please note that there are certain types of websites one cannot host in France, and companies such as Ebay cannot allow users located in France to even see certain types of auctions.
The government may have a compelling need that the market will never fill.
-Adam
Whip out that Windows Install CD and tell it in a nasty voice that you could easily slide the CD in its virginal slot and have its hardware rooted by every little hacker
Would you please keep your fantasies to yourself?
-Adam
As we can all see clearly now, and what Apple knew when they made their choice was that dollar for dollar, Intel processors perform better than what IBM was supplying Apple. IBM had no competitor for their processor, and no one purchased enough of them to make it worth IBM's time to improve it as much as Intel and AMD have improved their processors.
It's obvious really. Apple has enough other features to offer customers that a significant performance gap can occur before it becomes a major issue with customers, but ultimately the gap was going to widen enough to cause exactly that situation.
Apple is not an inconsequential customer. Your statement reflects reality, though: "The 'customer' who didn't command enough volume to get what they wanted from IBM's OEM processor business." What they wanted was a better performance/cost ratio. Neither IBM nor Apple could change in such a way that it would have been profitable for either to invest enough money into the PowerPC to bring it on par with Intel's offerings. If Apple sold as many computers as Intel sells P4s, then yes, the PowerPC could have made enough money to keep itself on par with the P4.
However, that doesn't mean that their volume is so low that it is inconsequential to Intel, and it does measurably impact other OEMs sourcing Intel chips.
Further, Intel can breath a small sigh of relief - they don't depend quite so heavily on windows. Further, their newest customer is even less likely to move to AMD than Dell.
-Adam
Yes, this is the usual course of action. However, Intel has recently obtained another largish customer, and Dell has measurably (not significantly, but measurably) less bargaining power in this situation.
It is unlikely that Dell will use AMD processors anytime soon. The bulk orders they place with Intel lower costs enough that if they decide to offer both processors then they will likely end up paying the same or more - it won't decrease the overall cost of their computers, nor increase their revenue.
As you pointed out, though, about once a year this noise is made, and both parties reevaluate their multi-year agreements and wonder if now is the time to move.
-Adam
What happened? Where's the Firewire 800?
USB 2.0 comes practically free with any modern chipset. Firewire does not. A good firewire interface will take 2-3 sq inches of PCB realestate, and add $1-2 to the total cost. The only area where firewire gained some market hold was with digital video cameras, and those now include USB 2.0. Lastly, very few pieces of equipment can even use firewire 800 to it's fullest. USB 2.0 is cheap enough and fast enough to do 99% of what needs to get done. Further you don't have as much customer confusion between ports and cable types and powered vs unpowered ports.
So all that means is that there's a very small slice of people who need firewire for which USB cannot work. They can get a card in the laptop, and Apple can save a few dollars per Mac.
Those who complain about it most are usually doing so for emotional reasons more than logical reasons. Much like those complaining that the new notebook should be referred to as a "Powerbook." They like Apple; Apple came out with firewire; ergo they like firewire. Nevermind that few new peripherals support firewire, and even fewer support only firwire and not USB. Nevermind that similar USB only peripherals are generally cheaper and perform as well as if not better than the equivilant firewire peripheral. Firewire lost in the market. Apple has acknowledged that. Let's move on.
-Adam
Oh, and that magnetic no-trip power cord... that's just slick apple engineering right there.
And is also available on many kitchen counter-top fryers. I applaud Apple for applying this safety technology to their products - but let's keep things in perspective.
Really slick engineering would be putting the powerbrick inside the laptop, with one connector for AC, vehicle, airplane, etc power, and a single cable with a few cable ends depending on the source.
-Adam
Nuclear power is not what it used to be in the 70s and 80s. The reactors are quite safe nowadays, especialy the N-type (which the Chinese are also developing).
That's because one of the primary goals of a nuclear reactor in the 70's and 80's was to help produce nuclear grade weapons material. That's the reason reactors are built the way they are, and the waste is so dangerous. Most of the heavily funded research was for reactors capable of producing byproduct that could be used in weapons.
If the goal of a reactor is not to produce weapons grade material, then it will not only be safer, but produce less dangerous waste.
At least, this is my understanding of the whys and hows of nuclear energy. We don't build them as much these days because they really have to be subsidized to be built, and the financier (gov't) doesn't need them any longer.
-Adam
First, they are essentially the same technology, simply tweaked to squeeze out more storage space and using a different wavelength of laser. This is hardly technology that required billions or even millions of R&D costs. Like the original DVD player and is close ties to CD technology, HD-DVD is just an extension, not an evolution of DVD technology. Thus, we shouldn't have to pay a huge premium for it.
Essentially the same technology, simply tweaked? Right.
First of all, until mass manufacturing kicks in, it isn't going to be a $20 transport. The HD in your computer has a hard enough time encoding gigabytes per square inch, and you never remove the disk.
Tracking on a DVD is hard enough on a rock stable platform. Now imagine that the player is experiencing vibration, and the disk is not perfectly flat, and you can compare it to flying a jet plane a few feet from the ground with a fixed focus camera, adjusting the height of the plane based on the 1 inch wide tape on the ground below. You have to stay on the same tape, even though there are parallel runs of tape closely spaced together. You have to ignore trees (scratches) which completely obscure your tape and all 50-500 adjacent tapes for hundreds of feet, and pick up the same tape you were previously following. Oh, and while you're at it, every inch of tape is either light grey, or dark grey, so translate that into a coherent data stream. Ignore the semi-transparent but otherwise identical tape strips located 1 foot above the strips on the ground. Unless we want the data off those strips, then ignore the ground strips.
Now fly a little closer, and track 0.1" wide tape. And the tape is much closer to adjacent tape strips. And the equipment vibration is still present. And the disk is still not flat. And the trees are just as large. And fly a bit faster, too, while you're at it.
I haven't researched the physical parameters of the media, but this should give you some idea of what's actually involved. DVD transports are cheap because they are very precise mechanisms with very advanced electronics made by the millions. The first transports were huge due to vibration damping, and in some cases actively balancing the disk while it was spinning. As electronics have advanced and the laser/lens servos have become more responsive, much of this was taken care of. With the newer disks the problems are exponentially worse, so even though the solutions have become better, they are still not "simple tweaks". Yes, eventually the price will drop - but only due to mass manufacturing of the transports. It will take 2-3 years to ramp up and improve the technology. If you can wait that long, great, you're all set.
-Adam
The main difference is the body style and bumper height. The bumpers for minivans are close to or at the height required for passenger vehicles. This results in crashes that are much different than an SUV crash. Further, the center of gravity is lower on a minivan than an SUV, though not a lot.
Of course, one can always mine the data oneself. The query function is fairly easy to use.
-Adam
If we're going to make a 0.81% BAC illegal (and punish it with major fines), should we not also have the same punishments for driving while having the sniffles, or while being 51?
No. Typically people do not have much choice over whether they're sick or over 50. They do have a choice over their drug/alcohol intake. The sleep one is a bit harder, but they can occasionally be prosecuted under driving while impaired type laws depending on the circumstances. Since BAC is much easier to measure with certianty, and is an active choice the driver makes, then it makes sense to restrict it and prosecute it.
I'd be interested in seeing a link to the study that shows a cold, poor nights sleep, or 50+ age have the same effects as 0.08% BAC.
-Adam
They think it could be used in emergency situations, such as Hurricane Katrina, to transport supplies.
Until some idiot shoots at it.
-Adam
How detailed a record of file use does NTFS or WinXP keep?
Pretty detailed. User account, time at a minimum.
Can you really show what files were accessed during a one-hour time span seven days ago?
Yes.
Above and beyond the 'last modified' date?
Yes.
On a read/write/execute basis?
In a roundabout fashion. I'm not as familiar with NTFS as I would need to be to give a good yes or no or yes with limitations. It keeps records of modification (write) and access (read) so the only unknown is whether one could tell if a file was merely read or executed. It is a journalling file system, so depending on how exactly it performs journalling, it may even be possible to find out which parts of a file were modified in the case of writes. This is less likely as journal records are, presumably, overwritten with new records over a short period of time.
Accessed by the system or by a user?
If I remember correctly, NTFS does record the date of creation, modification, and access with the user performing each action. Many "system" actions are performed in the user's name since, technically, the user is running the system program.
Do commercial burning programs keep a record of burn jobs they've performed?
Many programs do keep a short log of actions. They won't necessarily detail files involved, though. You'll be lucky if such a log tells you how much data was written to the disk in MB. This might actually be just as useful.
Does the CD drive itself have any appreciable nonvolatile cache?
No.
Is there any other general insight applicable to this situation?
Yes:
Person B hires a computer forensics 'expert', who claims that Person A accessed something like 3000 files during the 1 hour time span in question, when Person A was burning files to CD.
This points to a very simple search of all files modified, accessed, or created during that time period. Please note that this could indicate a virus scanner or system backup utility running in the backup as much as it indicates a cd writing program. Viruses can also exhibit this behavior. Try to find out how many files were accessed in the previous 24 hours before this particular hour, and the following 24 hours. It could be that every hour during that time had several thousand files uniquely accessed.
Person A primarily wants to prove that the data he turned over on CD was the only data he took, approximately 50 word/excel type files, which we will assume to be true.
Quite frankly, if he needed 6 CDs to burn 50 word/excel files... well, let's just say that you should explain to him that you try to assume nothing so that you can have the best view of the facts.
Also note that if data backups are made of the computer on a daily/weekly/regular basis, it may be that one can use those to show useful data about your client's use of the computer. An interesting tactic would be for your client's attornies to request a detailed log of computer use for the week previous and the week following the incident to establish a pattern of use. Request all possible backups. Request... well, everything. The attorney will know what you mean.
Lastly, keep in mind that your client has already 'confessed' - the only thing left to determine is not whether he is guilty, but how guilty. Chances are good that even if he didn't do more than he says he will have a hard time proving that he has fully complied.
Lastly: Don't become personally involved, or emotionally invested. Your client will be, and he may even be pulling you into it without knowing it. Understand that anything you say to him may be used in any forthcoming legal case, and you may find yourself more involved than you desire to be.
-Adam
It is likely that your system fails to boot up because a stupid driver is tryting to read a log file or data file that it keeps freeking open all the time when running
BAD DRIVER! BAD! BAD! NO COOKIE FOR YOU!
Your mission, should you choose to accept it, is to hunt this driver down, and without mercy destroy it!
One path you might take to begin this task is to install plain vanilla windows without any drivers - don't even think about using the windows disk that came from Gateway!. Now unplug the computer while it's running. Does it boot up? Good! That's because the default drivers included in Windows are, generally speaking (and almost miraculously) fairly safe drivers to use.
Now at this point you might think, "Hey, I want to install all that other junk that came with my computer that I never use!" TRY to suppress that urge. If you can possibly live without it, then don't install it. Go to the individual manufacturer websites of the devices which do not perform adequately with the plain vanilla install of windows. This might include chipset, sound, graphics. Install them and do the unplug test with each of them.
This should resolve your problems, as long as you don't install any drivers you don't absolutely need that windows doesn't come with.
If you exhibit a desire for a higher performance system and start installing the other latest drivers from either gateway or the manufacturer for devices that windows provides a decent driver for - please step away from the computer. Close your eyes, take a deep breath and calmly propel you head backwards into the floor. When you awaken, your mind will be clear, and this thought will be foremost, "If I wanted a performance computer I could tweak that I could also use on a daily basis, I wouldn't have purchased a boxed system."
-Adam
RedHat follows Indian investment trend
Is that what people are calling outsourcing now?
-Adam
who in their right mind sees it necessary to put critical systems online?
The internet itself is considered a critical system. As valuable (perhaps more) as the telephone and electricity utilities.
What is concerning to many is another Morris internet worm or a similar crash of the internet. Take the recent cisco bugs - these make up a significant portion of internet routing capability. Should someone succeed in developing a cisco worm that infects even 5% of the cisco routers (specifically the "big iron" type routers at major peering points) then the internet will instantly become fairly useless. It will take hours, days, and weeks to get it working well again.
Such a hit to the internet would significantly affect the economy. Further, the entire internet would feel the effects of more stringent regulation.
It's not the simple hacks that people are concerned about. Just like an earthquake, a significant event is going to occur without warning - how can it not happen? If you believe it won't happen, then one of the following must be true:
1) You believe there are no significant enough security problems in routers/computers/etc to cause such a major fracture or
2) You believe that those individuals and organizations who have the ability to target such security problems will choose not to do so.
Can you safely make both assumptions? If so, I suspect you overestimate human nature.
It may be useful to note that the US government will treat a catastrophic internet event in the same manner as they would a catastrophic attack on the telephone, electric, or even road infrastructure.
The difference is that the internet is much, much more vulnerable. The point of penetration can be continents apart from ground zero - and homeland security isn't scanning packets for proper visas.
-Adam
Do you have stairs in your house?
noo, you cannot come here go away robot, you are scaring me
-Adam
It's been awhile since I've studied firewire, but as far as I recall it's a relatively simple packet based protocol.
I don't see why a common firewire card couldn't be used to snoop on the traffic on a bus. Because of the way endpoints and bus controllers are determined, and how data flows you may have to be careful about the placement of the snooping computer on the bus.
The real trick is getting the chipset datasheet from the manufacturer.
Good luck!
-Adam
Have things really gotten to the point when everytime we don't like a product we sue the manufacturer?
Apparantly.
What happened to the days when if a product wasn't what we expected it to be we simply told our friends not to buy one and didn't buy from that manufacturer again?
It's not as profitable.
Are companies required to produce products that every single person in the world likes otherwise be victims of a lawsuit?
Yes. If you have a company and expect never to get sued, you are suffering under a rather severe delusion.
Are standard defects valid causes for suits?
Moreso than it used to be.
We (well Slashdot population) all know that no process is 100% defect free, even a 6 sigma process still has 3.4 defects per million opportunities. Are we that litigious?
Apparantly. Please understand that it doesn't matter what the defect rate is for the manufacturer. If I buy a product and it fails, the defect rate, as far as I'm concerned, is 100%. If I can't get an immediate replacement then the manufacturer has done something wrong. In this case, buying an xbox360, due to customer demand, is like playing the lottery. I pay $umpteen hundred dollars for a 4 in 5 chance that I'll get a working product at the time of purchase. Doesn't sound like a good bet? What if your intention was not to bet in the first place? You were buying something, and then it was swapped for a risky bet instead.
The real problem is that MS made an error in design or selection of components. If this guy was the only one to complain, he wouldn't have filed. Since he notices that this problem is systemic, then it's more likely a design or selection issue than a one-off fault.
How long before someone sues a restaurant because their steak was medium instead of medium rare?
Notice how steak houses used to "Guarantee" that your steak will be done just right, and how you can't find anything like that anymore? Guess why?
The reason why this seems more prevalent now than it used to be is the amplifying effect of the internet. One bad xbox per 100 xboxs sold wouldn't make the news or TV due to the wide geographic distribution. However if 50 people complain all over the internet then it becomes a big issue, despite 10,000 that are happy.
-Adam
heard about "RFID Tags in New US Notes"?
Yes, and I'm relatively certian there are no RFID tags embedded in US currency. If there were, then there would be a charred spot when one note was microwaved by itself. Instead the person carrying out the experiment had to stack them.
There are metal bits embedded in currency, which form antennas in various configurations. These could be termed RF sensitive, and I suppose they could even be considered a cheap form of RFID if one can determine the note value by the placement or resonance of the antenna, but I doubt they are serialized and could be used to identify a particular note.
RFID capable of giving the required 32 bits or more of serialization needs a microchip and a coil. Either of which would be easily identifiable - if not by eye then by microscope.
However, cash can be tracked - each bill is serial numbered, and I'm certain that money counting equipment exists to read that number. I just doubt it's in widespread use. Stores certianly wouldn't track serial numbers for each transaction - the clerks would have to pass each bill through a reader as they receive it and dispense it. I doubt that cash makes up enough of their transactions to be worth the time and resources.
Having a 45x microscope, two new twenty dollar bills, and a microwave handy my coworker and I studied the bills, microwaved them, and studied them again. There is no way that there's any conventional antenna, coil or semiconductor embedded in the bill. There was no change to the bill after microwaving it for over 10 seconds, except normal (expected) heating. I imagine the ink, not the paper, was absorbing most of the radiation, and this might explain why a stack of 20s is required to duplicate the experiment. The ink seems to have more coverage around the head, but the particular location of the burn is more likely due to the microwave forming a standing RF wave in that spot, rather than the bill being more likely to heat up in that spot than any other.
So: Yes, I've heard about the "RFID Tags in New US Notes" and, as an engineer, remain unconvinced. If money is trackable per bill via non-contact and non-visual means, then it is not used at the checkout, and is unlikely to be used in the backroom, which means that it still doesn't narrow down the field when searching for someone stealing from a store using this scheme.
Further, if there were an RFID tag in our currency, conventional or not, then it would have been found and published by now. I doubt the government is interested in tracking individual bills for any reason other than to catch counterfeit bills.
-Adam
It's much harder to forge an RFID tag
True.
unless you have the private key of the transmitter, or have some high-tech spy equipment that can capture the entire negotiation stream between the transmitter and target to crack it later... and the cost of doing either of these things would be prohibitive to anyone who wants to make money off shoplifting (you'd be better off planning a bank robbery).
False. The stores aren't going to spend more than a penny or so per tag, and the tags will not be encrypted. They will have individual id numbers, though, and these will be stored in a database - much like a serial number. So you'll have to scan an existing unsold item in the store and duplicate that tag onto your target item. This is going to be difficult and expensive, since you have to disable the existing tag (inside the packaging) and add your own tag in an unobtrusive manner.
It is harder than barcodes, which anyone can print from their own computer. But I doubt retailers are going to be employing anything more than the simplest 64 or 128 bit ID. These can still be duplicated with a simple circuit (coil, a few passives, maybe a tiny battery) and microcontroller. Should be small enough to fit under a sticker: "New! Improved!" or "2 Year Warranty!" or "Newspeak V5.2 Included!"
The real deterrent is that when they scan the item you stole the tag from, they'll notice it's been sold, and a stock check will show up the missing item you stole. Since they are tagged with serial numbers they can track down your transaction. With even the time, date, and cash register number they'll be able to pull up camera footage if you were smart enough to pay cash. If not then they'll have lots of electronic information about your CC, debit card, or check to track you down with.
The biggest advantage to using RFID is not easier and more accurate scanning, it's that every item in the store now has a serial number and exists in the database. Better stock control will improve the bottom line - this is Walmart's biggest strength. If everyone goes to RFID then Walmart will have many more significant competitors since a lot of the operation they've worked so hard on is built into the whole RFID system. Perhaps one reason why they aren't pushing it so hard.
-Adam
It can be simpler than that.
Simply force every website that has XXX material on it to register an additional
Filtering then becomes simple: Take IP address, do reverse domain matching on it through
-Adam
It's a perfectly cromulent word.
-Adam
Ok, so there's justification for not using a high end processor (offloading most processing to other components), but then they go ahead and drop in a a $330 dual core CPU. I think the only justification to pick this CPU is for the 'geek factor'.
In this case this is very appropiate. They had two HDTV tuners and two analog tuners. The HDTV tuners consume nearly 20Mbps each, while the analogs go up to 12Mbps. The CPU is doing a ton of work when recording 64Mbps of data to the hard drive - in fact, they indicated that the system really wasn't reacting well to other user actions while it was recording from all four tuners at once. It is likely that they couldn't have recorded from two and watched another at once.
The dual core was a good choice, despite the lack of qualification. There are other system bottlenecks, and I suspect that they would have a better system if they went with a single core and spent the additional money on a striped raid and huge cache, extremely low latency hard drives to improve HD throughput. In a system like this you want to be able to write 64Mbps to the HD (not sequentially) and read 20Mbps simultaneously.
-Adam
I am merely pointing out what appears to be your unwarranted, blind faith in the infallability of free market and an out-of-hand dismissal of a possibililty of seismic shifts in the way of life of hundreds of millions of people, all of which can have far ranging effects well beyond the scope of pure economics, and with which the free markets are completely unequipped to deal with.
???
Suppose, for a moment, that I'm naive. I'm looking at the problem from a very simplistic perspective.
What exactly do you mean that economics can't handle "seismic shifts in the way of life for millions of people"?
Are you saying that our economy will collapse because the academic field of economics doesn't have a good model for such "seismic shifts"?
Did the world survive before plastics? Yes.
Are we able to produce plastics without oil? Yes, with some limitations.
Are we able to produce fuel without oil? Yes.
Are there other sources for chemicals we currently extract from oil? Yes, with some limitations.
Quite frankly, I don't see the problem. Oil will become gradually more expensive, cheaper replacements will be substituted, and the economy will change.
Why is it that people treat the economy as though it's so fragile? Of course it's going to change, quite drastically. We will certianly have some drastic changes in the economy. Complaining about the oil supply changing the economy is like complaining about company pension plans disappearing affecting the economy. Of course they did, and quite drastically. We live in a completely different economy because few companies supply pension plans.
But of all the people crying chicken little about oil, I haven't seen a single one describe what exactly are the calamatous effects of "peak oil".
So perhaps you can explain to me how this will affect the economy, and why this particular challenge is so much worse than previous changes.
-Adam