It's been said zillions of times before, but I'll say it again.
Someone has to be able to hear you at the other end (where there is no disaster). If the local noise floor is S9+20, there's no way I'm going to be able to hear your little 100W call for help from hundreds of miles away. It just isn't going to be copyable above the noise.
Hold down shift and click end point with left mouse button
Not exactly "intuitive" since most "paint" type apps people are probably used to have a built-in special "line" tool, but it has the advantage of working for any tool in GIMP which could normally be dragged or whatever (so you can use the pencilo, paintbrush, eraser, etc).
There are a few schools which offer degrees in "Software Engineering". I happen to be a student at one of them (Rose-Hulman Institute of Technology), though I'm an EE and Computer Engineering (both out of the EE department), not CS or SE.
The SE tracks tend to focus more on project development. Things like adhering to specifications and such. Basically, some of the same stuff that gets taught in EE engineering classes. Of course, they take some of the CS classes.
"Fundamental" computer science is more math than engineering, though most schools (appropriately) teach a bit of both. Rose does this, though recently they have begun to separate more since the introduction of the software engineering degree.
And yes, you can be a licensed professional engineer in software engineering. Donald Bagert, a professor of mine last year, was the first to bear that title in the US.
The idea is that a firewall wasn't originally designed to protect against that scenario. The protection agains that scenario are educated users (hah!) and keeping up on security updates (in most places, again, hah!). The "firewall" is at best a poor hack to keep things like that from happening.
The word "firewall" has been corrupted by people like Norton and McAfee recently to mean a different thing than originally. Originally, a firewall as something that filtered off things that you'd rather not have people on the public internet have access too. This would let you run fundamentally insecure things like NFS or often insecure things like windows filesharing (SMB) internally without worrying about the internet having access to it.
Recently, firewall has taken on a new meaning. A firewall is apparently now a device or piece of software that lets you get by without patching security vulneribilities. The solution to these is to fix the damn problem, not cover it with a band-aid. "Firewalling off" a service vulnerible to a superuser level exploit (not like NFS which is only vulnerible to user spoofing, at least in most configurations) is a temporary fix at best. Of course, if it's a service that isn't needed, just turn it off and be done with it.
The idea behind the firewall was to restore the "privateness" of a private network, and keep it separate from the "big bad internet". Certain things are allowed through unchecked as they are part of the use of the network for internet purposes, while others are simply blocked as they are meant for private, internal use only.
Application firewalls are a completely different beast. They are desgined to prevent rouge applications from connecting outbound, or to protect against user stupidity. The solution here isn't more software. The solution is to not allow things like this in the first place. If you don't want people to have access to your system without authentication, don't allow it (goodbye NFS, we'll miss you). If you don't want applications to be able to make outbound connections without asking you, make them ask you. This should be an OS feature, not a "firewall" feature.
The problem here is not the redefining of the word; that happens all the time (look at "hacker"). The problem is that firewall now means two completely distinct things in situations where it's difficult to tell the meanings apart (unlike "hacker").</rant>
That's not to say that it's a bad book or the review is flawed, though some of the comments would tend to tell me that the reviewer isn't as "computer savvy" as I might like in a person reviewing a book. A properly configured border firewall, for example, will protect systems behind it. That says nothing of the duties of many of those "personal firewall" applications that are actually much more than firewalls (spam filters, scumware/spyware/adware scanner/filters, etc).
I just found it amusing that the adequacy.org article was the first thing I thought of when reading this review...
The stellar converter is pretty much only useful against antarans (see below). It ignores defensive specials and therefore ignores their damper field and, more importantly, the reflection field.
I'm still under the belief that, at normal levels of miniturization (say only a couple hyper advanced tech levels), the heavy plasma cannon gives the most bang/space. It's enveloping, so once you take down the enemy's shields (which will often be pretty pathetic, unless they're creative or picked a good shield), or if they lack shields (like anatarans with damper fields), they instantly do 4x damage. They may take double range penalties, but that's what both teleporters and simply using multiple hundreds of the things is to compensate for:)
I've never managed to get a phasor down to 1 space unit. I always try to end the game with still a positive score bonus for time.
Also, I don't know if they changed this in the patch or not (I frequently play unpatched MOO II), but my stellar converter with achilles targeting unit seems to ignore even xentronium (I use it on the antaran star fortress). Maybe that's some combination of the stellar converter's "ignore defensive specials" thing with the achilles targeting unit, or maybe that got changed in the patch.
I will say that I've actually managed to kill the star fortress in one hit using heavy plasma cannon; not too tough actually. Unfortunately, my doom star also died from the reflection:(
Holy Shit! Someone else who's actually played Master of Orion? That can't be!
Just don't attack my planet with 1000 missle bases armed with scatter pack Xs, or I may have to send my doom star armed with multiple hundreds of heavy plasma cannons, and maybe a stellar converter or two, to blow you to bits (and yes, I'm aware I just mixed MOO with MOO II).
The number of writes that your average flash chip can endure is so large, that you'd have to TRY to "wear it out". Most flash devices these days (at least all the good ones) do wear patterning, where new writes are spread out over a large second of unused space (though this often requires filesystem support, see jffs[2]). This makes it even harder to kill flash memory since writes to one spot won't actually write to one spot, but will instead be spread over the whole device.
For grins, someone once went and calculated how long it would take to "wear out" the flash in a 32MB iPAQ. They figured out that, using wear patterning on an unloaded device (in other words, writing the the entire device and then starting over at the beginnign again), it would take 12 YEARS to wear it out if one were to write as fast as the flash was rated to write. Of course, if you're not wear patterning, you could wear out a sector quickly, but that's what filesystems have bad sector support for (even FAT has it, though that's a holdover from the ancient days where hard drives came with bad sectors, and of course flash filesystems support the inevitable wearing out of sectors).
No, but there are hidden codes, at least on older mixes.
On 3rd mix, to play Maniac difficulty (called SSR for Step Step Revolution), you had to do "left left left right right right left right" on the select arrows before beginning the game. Then you probably wanted it on vivid (rather than the default of flat) which was "left right left left right right left right" on the actual pad.
There's a whole bunch of other hidden options too (hidden, sudden, stealth, turn, etc). The codes are readily available, but can be hard to remember, especially if you normally play newer mixes (DDRMAX and newer have an options screen) that don't need them.
Well, memory you grab in Linux with malloc(...) and friends isn't *supposed* to be executable, though some applications (XFree86 comes to mind, amongst others, not to bash XFree86) think that it is.
This is why using NX and friends on Linux can break apps. Any application that loads code into memory it grabbed with malloc or similar will get killed when it tries to run code in that memory space (since that memory isn't supposed to be executable).
Now, there are ways around this of course. The proper way is to fix the application to either not use malloc for grabbing storage for things that are supposed to be executable or to include an option when calling malloc to say "yeah yeah, but I need to this to be executable too", though that sounds kinda hackish.
The way it's currently implemented with software implementations of NX are to provide a userspace tool to mark an application as "broken" or whatever and therefore exempt from NX checking. Silly and insecure, but it works.
As long as you still have access to "supervisor mode" on your processor (the context the kernel runs in), you'll be able to set the NX flag however you like. Basically, this means that without other measures to prevent you from loading kernel code, all this does is prevent buffer overflows in userland software (and possibly the kernel if the kernel decides to use it, which is probably a good thing).
Now, this isn't to say anything about other mechanisms which would prevent you from loading your own code onto a processor (which is what most of Microsoft's proposed DRM schemes do), but it could close off an avenue of bypassing that DRM (via poorly coded "trusted" software).
It can be done in software (grsecurity does it on x86 in linux), but is much faster if done in hardware (and I believe linux makes use of it already on those archetectures which support it such as Alpha and UltraSparc).
There is significant overhead in doing it in software since you need to check the NX flag every time you bring up a page of code to execute. If it's done in hardware, you don't need to even do a context switch on many archetectures, and the hardware will just throw an exception if something bad happens (trying to execute code marked not executable), which the kernel will catch and handle (likely by segfaulting the offending process). Possibly remote root hole turns into a trivial DoS attack.
Remember, there are two major systems for doing public key crypto. The idea is to take a problem that is incredibly easy to do one way (make the public key from the private), but very difficult to do the reverse of. Factoring large numbers is a great example (and is what RSA uses). It's easy to multiply two large primes, but much more difficult to factor the product back into the original two primes. If there were a computer which could do this quickly, RSA would be effectively useless.
There is also the discrete log problem, which is what DSA uses. I don't pretend to be a cryptographer, or even know really what the discrete log problem involves (no google links please, I have all the info I need on it if I were really interested), but I do know that it is very easy to do one way, but very hard to do the other! Exactly what you need for public key crypto. Now, if we have a theoretical computer which can break this in reasonable time, DSA becomes worthless. However, there are definately other ways of doing public key crypto than the factoring problem.
Also, another interesting things about quantum crypto (of course, quantum crypto is largely theoretical at this point, so this is not guaranteed in real world implementations) is that both ends KNOW if the datastream has been intercepted. Not just if it's been modified (we can be reasonably sure of that right now using good hashing algorithms for signatures), but if it has mearly been intercepted. This is quite handy because now you know immediately if you need to somehow change things since your data is even POSSIBLY compromised. Really cool stuff.
Indeed, 24-24.25GHz is allocated in the US to the Amateur service. So, use 24.25-25GHz, or 23.5-24GHz. It's only 250MHz when you're talking frequences in the GHz range. Very easy to avoid.
Also, I wouldn't be surprised if the FCC allows use of that band by unliscensed Part 15 users on a non-interference basis (ex: The 2.4GHz band your Wi-Fi network runs on is also allocated to the Amateur service, but you can use it anyway as long as you don't cause me interference). If a spread spectrum mode or similar is used, any Amateurs using that band are unlikely to even notice.
Also, propagation at 24GHz is basically line of sight. Unless you point this thing at my receiver, I'm probably not going to know you ever transmitted, even if I'm looking for it!
I am now to the point where I can do every single song on a DDRMAX2 machine (though I can't always muster up enough stamina for MAX300 or Maxx Unlimited). This isn't because I'm "that good". I certainly couldn't sight read many of the 9s. It's because I've practically memorized the song (at least when the steps are, not the actual sequences).
When the local arcade got a new Extreme arcade I found that there were actually a couple 8 footers that I didn't pass on my first try. While it's annoying losing your money, it's quite fun to get thrown a loop on some stream pattern you don't see very often or some more odd gallop-8th-16th step sequences.
Though don't get me started on the "100% not upbeats or downbeats" song that is memories (the 4th stage on the Naoki Neo-Standard oni course that is keeping me at #5 on this machine).
To all those skeptical about this, they are being serious. I personally lost weight (though I'm starting to gain it back...in muscle in my legs...) doing DDR. Also, I'm much more engergetic since starting to play DDR about a year ago.
Yes, RedOctane does sell some expensive gear, but if you really like playing DDR it's well worth it if you want to play at home. Some people have indicated that the Ignition pads (their top of the line soft pad) doesn't last very long. I can't confirm how long they last, but a local club has 8 of them. 6 of them still work a year after they were purchased (with numerous people jumping on them like crazy every wednesday except during the summer) and the 2 that don't work seem to have a problem with controller somewhere (the sensors still work!).
Regarding the weight loss, it is not immediately evident! Expect to actually gain a little weight first for those of you who are scale crazy (you know, it's those muscle things). You have to gain some muscle to actually move around before you can start burning up excess fat.
Also, just like any other workout, don't forget to warm up!! Stretch before you begin. Start off with easier songs. Etc. I swear I almost gave myself a heart attack last night because I just stepped right on to the pad and attempted Maxx Unlimited (for those who are curious, I made it to the freeze, though I have passed before...yes, on Maniac difficulty).
Also, don't get discouraged if you can't do it! Some people I know who are actually quite good now couldn't even pass "one footers" (the easiest under the difficulty ranking system) when they started. Practice, and you *will* get better (nobody just steps onto a DDR machine and starts playing on Maniac).
Also remember that you can check it out before committing to anything in the way of home gaming. Many arcades now have DDR machines in them. Usually you can get three songs (if you don't fail) for $0.75-$1.00 just to try out. Many arcades now won't even fail you on your first song if you're playing on basic difficulty (called light on newer arcades).
Anyway, give it a try if you're interested. There's certainly nothing to lose, other than weight!
While not the best card in the world, it does work (And is supported in linux if you want to run that on your PDA) and has an external antenna connection available with little modding. The D-Link DCF-660W has an antenna connector right under the plastic cover.
It's a CF card, so it will work in your mentioned PDAs. Just pop the plastic off, figure out what the heck that connector is, and hook up your pringles can.
Check it out for yourself. That's a handy dandy table compiled from the datasheets for all common procs (the opterons are on there, and I will compare both 32 bit and 64 bit offerings from Intel and AMD).
The Athlon XP 3200+ (2.2GHz Barton core) is said to dissipate a maximum of 76.8W of heat (that's a lot), normally about 60.4W. This appears to be one of AMDs hottest chips (the famed "melting thunderbird" puts out a maximum of 72W according to the datasheet).
The Intel P4 3.2Ghz (presumably comparable to the 3200+ if you believe the speed ratings, which overall they seem to be at least close) is designed to dissipate a whopping 82W of heat, and no maximum is given. 82 > 72.
The Opteron-246 (2.0GHz) is designed to dissipate 80.6W of heat in normal operation (check the spec sheet for that definition).
The Intel Itanium-2 900 (slowest, lowest heat 64 bit offering from Intel) is designed to dissipate 90W of heat. 90 > 80.6. The fastest Itanium from Intel listed on this page (Itanium-2 1.5G) dissipates a humongous 107W! Go find a 100W light bulb for a quick comparison. Of course, they are dissipating it over an area of about 1 cm^2 (not sure of the exact core size on the itaniums, may be bigger).
Basically, the Intel procs actually put out MORE heat than comparable AMDs. That's not to say that AMD chips run cool. Indeed, my tbird system keeps the area nice and toasty (then again, I can use my P4m laptop as a hand warmer too!). x86 chips just tend to run very hot these days.
TrageSym for assistance with making your symbols and toutorial
PCB (I hear decent version are actually getting decent, amazing)
People: There's lots of them, see my link to openhardware above, soemone linked to opencores, etc. There's a community for this.
Boards can be had fairly cheap (say $40 each) even in rather small quantity. Or for small projects you could always etch your own.
The only issue is chips. ASICs and such, well, aren't cheap in small quantity. However, FPGAs, once you get past the initial investment int he hardware, can be usable in small projects. This stuff is certainly out of my league though.
Open Hardware Project
Enjoy. Most of it's still rather raw, and most of it's based off m68k, so don't expect to run "real" linux on it (uClinux is often the objective though).
Well, currently, there are HP employees (researchers, formerly Compaq, formerly DEC employees) helping with making it work on HP iPAQ units. This helps the iPAQ porting efforts go quicker than ports to other company's handhelds. However, the product cycle time on iPAQs seems to have gotten pretty short recently, and we're having troubel keeping up with the model families as they come out (54xx support is appearing, 19xx bootldr work is in progress currently).
Dell doesn't exactly provide info for these projects. Most of this is entirely reverse engineered (which is partially why WinCE is still needed to do HW init, but also as a bootstrap in this case). I'm amazed he's managed to get a kernel booting, let alone OPIE running!
Apparently it's economically feasable to sell a PDA with WinCE (pronounce like prince) on it and develop linux to run on the side!
A check out handhelds.org for info on that one. Yes, you can run linux on Compaq, pardon me, HP, iPAQs. Yes it runs pretty well. Oh, and yes we run X11 just fine thank you (and my X server itself is about 800-900kB, not too shabby).
If X11 isn't for you, you can of course run OPIE (basically an opensource fork of QPE, which is what runs on the Zaurus). Still works great.
Oh, and as for feasability, take a look at the Zaurus. They still make them, don't they?
Slashdot Mirror
It's been said zillions of times before, but I'll say it again.
Someone has to be able to hear you at the other end (where there is no disaster). If the local noise floor is S9+20, there's no way I'm going to be able to hear your little 100W call for help from hundreds of miles away. It just isn't going to be copyable above the noise.
- Select tool to draw line with
- Click start point with left mouse button
- Hold down shift and click end point with left mouse button
Not exactly "intuitive" since most "paint" type apps people are probably used to have a built-in special "line" tool, but it has the advantage of working for any tool in GIMP which could normally be dragged or whatever (so you can use the pencilo, paintbrush, eraser, etc).There are a few schools which offer degrees in "Software Engineering". I happen to be a student at one of them (Rose-Hulman Institute of Technology), though I'm an EE and Computer Engineering (both out of the EE department), not CS or SE.
The SE tracks tend to focus more on project development. Things like adhering to specifications and such. Basically, some of the same stuff that gets taught in EE engineering classes. Of course, they take some of the CS classes.
"Fundamental" computer science is more math than engineering, though most schools (appropriately) teach a bit of both. Rose does this, though recently they have begun to separate more since the introduction of the software engineering degree.
And yes, you can be a licensed professional engineer in software engineering. Donald Bagert, a professor of mine last year, was the first to bear that title in the US.
The idea is that a firewall wasn't originally designed to protect against that scenario. The protection agains that scenario are educated users (hah!) and keeping up on security updates (in most places, again, hah!). The "firewall" is at best a poor hack to keep things like that from happening.
The word "firewall" has been corrupted by people like Norton and McAfee recently to mean a different thing than originally. Originally, a firewall as something that filtered off things that you'd rather not have people on the public internet have access too. This would let you run fundamentally insecure things like NFS or often insecure things like windows filesharing (SMB) internally without worrying about the internet having access to it.
Recently, firewall has taken on a new meaning. A firewall is apparently now a device or piece of software that lets you get by without patching security vulneribilities. The solution to these is to fix the damn problem, not cover it with a band-aid. "Firewalling off" a service vulnerible to a superuser level exploit (not like NFS which is only vulnerible to user spoofing, at least in most configurations) is a temporary fix at best. Of course, if it's a service that isn't needed, just turn it off and be done with it.
The idea behind the firewall was to restore the "privateness" of a private network, and keep it separate from the "big bad internet". Certain things are allowed through unchecked as they are part of the use of the network for internet purposes, while others are simply blocked as they are meant for private, internal use only.
Application firewalls are a completely different beast. They are desgined to prevent rouge applications from connecting outbound, or to protect against user stupidity. The solution here isn't more software. The solution is to not allow things like this in the first place. If you don't want people to have access to your system without authentication, don't allow it (goodbye NFS, we'll miss you). If you don't want applications to be able to make outbound connections without asking you, make them ask you. This should be an OS feature, not a "firewall" feature.
The problem here is not the redefining of the word; that happens all the time (look at "hacker"). The problem is that firewall now means two completely distinct things in situations where it's difficult to tell the meanings apart (unlike "hacker").</rant>
I'm certainly hoping it's a joke. I certainly was expecting to have the comment be modded funny. The insightful mod was quite astonishing.
I'm sorry, but I read this review and instantly thought of the imfamous "Is your son a computer hacker?" thing that we all know and love.
That's not to say that it's a bad book or the review is flawed, though some of the comments would tend to tell me that the reviewer isn't as "computer savvy" as I might like in a person reviewing a book. A properly configured border firewall, for example, will protect systems behind it. That says nothing of the duties of many of those "personal firewall" applications that are actually much more than firewalls (spam filters, scumware/spyware/adware scanner/filters, etc).
I just found it amusing that the adequacy.org article was the first thing I thought of when reading this review...
The stellar converter is pretty much only useful against antarans (see below). It ignores defensive specials and therefore ignores their damper field and, more importantly, the reflection field.
:)
:(
I'm still under the belief that, at normal levels of miniturization (say only a couple hyper advanced tech levels), the heavy plasma cannon gives the most bang/space. It's enveloping, so once you take down the enemy's shields (which will often be pretty pathetic, unless they're creative or picked a good shield), or if they lack shields (like anatarans with damper fields), they instantly do 4x damage. They may take double range penalties, but that's what both teleporters and simply using multiple hundreds of the things is to compensate for
I've never managed to get a phasor down to 1 space unit. I always try to end the game with still a positive score bonus for time.
Also, I don't know if they changed this in the patch or not (I frequently play unpatched MOO II), but my stellar converter with achilles targeting unit seems to ignore even xentronium (I use it on the antaran star fortress). Maybe that's some combination of the stellar converter's "ignore defensive specials" thing with the achilles targeting unit, or maybe that got changed in the patch.
I will say that I've actually managed to kill the star fortress in one hit using heavy plasma cannon; not too tough actually. Unfortunately, my doom star also died from the reflection
Holy Shit! Someone else who's actually played Master of Orion? That can't be!
Just don't attack my planet with 1000 missle bases armed with scatter pack Xs, or I may have to send my doom star armed with multiple hundreds of heavy plasma cannons, and maybe a stellar converter or two, to blow you to bits (and yes, I'm aware I just mixed MOO with MOO II).
The number of writes that your average flash chip can endure is so large, that you'd have to TRY to "wear it out". Most flash devices these days (at least all the good ones) do wear patterning, where new writes are spread out over a large second of unused space (though this often requires filesystem support, see jffs[2]). This makes it even harder to kill flash memory since writes to one spot won't actually write to one spot, but will instead be spread over the whole device.
For grins, someone once went and calculated how long it would take to "wear out" the flash in a 32MB iPAQ. They figured out that, using wear patterning on an unloaded device (in other words, writing the the entire device and then starting over at the beginnign again), it would take 12 YEARS to wear it out if one were to write as fast as the flash was rated to write. Of course, if you're not wear patterning, you could wear out a sector quickly, but that's what filesystems have bad sector support for (even FAT has it, though that's a holdover from the ancient days where hard drives came with bad sectors, and of course flash filesystems support the inevitable wearing out of sectors).
No, but there are hidden codes, at least on older mixes.
On 3rd mix, to play Maniac difficulty (called SSR for Step Step Revolution), you had to do "left left left right right right left right" on the select arrows before beginning the game. Then you probably wanted it on vivid (rather than the default of flat) which was "left right left left right right left right" on the actual pad.
There's a whole bunch of other hidden options too (hidden, sudden, stealth, turn, etc). The codes are readily available, but can be hard to remember, especially if you normally play newer mixes (DDRMAX and newer have an options screen) that don't need them.
Well, memory you grab in Linux with malloc(...) and friends isn't *supposed* to be executable, though some applications (XFree86 comes to mind, amongst others, not to bash XFree86) think that it is.
This is why using NX and friends on Linux can break apps. Any application that loads code into memory it grabbed with malloc or similar will get killed when it tries to run code in that memory space (since that memory isn't supposed to be executable).
Now, there are ways around this of course. The proper way is to fix the application to either not use malloc for grabbing storage for things that are supposed to be executable or to include an option when calling malloc to say "yeah yeah, but I need to this to be executable too", though that sounds kinda hackish.
The way it's currently implemented with software implementations of NX are to provide a userspace tool to mark an application as "broken" or whatever and therefore exempt from NX checking. Silly and insecure, but it works.
As long as you still have access to "supervisor mode" on your processor (the context the kernel runs in), you'll be able to set the NX flag however you like. Basically, this means that without other measures to prevent you from loading kernel code, all this does is prevent buffer overflows in userland software (and possibly the kernel if the kernel decides to use it, which is probably a good thing).
Now, this isn't to say anything about other mechanisms which would prevent you from loading your own code onto a processor (which is what most of Microsoft's proposed DRM schemes do), but it could close off an avenue of bypassing that DRM (via poorly coded "trusted" software).
It can be done in software (grsecurity does it on x86 in linux), but is much faster if done in hardware (and I believe linux makes use of it already on those archetectures which support it such as Alpha and UltraSparc).
There is significant overhead in doing it in software since you need to check the NX flag every time you bring up a page of code to execute. If it's done in hardware, you don't need to even do a context switch on many archetectures, and the hardware will just throw an exception if something bad happens (trying to execute code marked not executable), which the kernel will catch and handle (likely by segfaulting the offending process). Possibly remote root hole turns into a trivial DoS attack.
Remember, there are two major systems for doing public key crypto. The idea is to take a problem that is incredibly easy to do one way (make the public key from the private), but very difficult to do the reverse of. Factoring large numbers is a great example (and is what RSA uses). It's easy to multiply two large primes, but much more difficult to factor the product back into the original two primes. If there were a computer which could do this quickly, RSA would be effectively useless.
There is also the discrete log problem, which is what DSA uses. I don't pretend to be a cryptographer, or even know really what the discrete log problem involves (no google links please, I have all the info I need on it if I were really interested), but I do know that it is very easy to do one way, but very hard to do the other! Exactly what you need for public key crypto. Now, if we have a theoretical computer which can break this in reasonable time, DSA becomes worthless. However, there are definately other ways of doing public key crypto than the factoring problem.
Also, another interesting things about quantum crypto (of course, quantum crypto is largely theoretical at this point, so this is not guaranteed in real world implementations) is that both ends KNOW if the datastream has been intercepted. Not just if it's been modified (we can be reasonably sure of that right now using good hashing algorithms for signatures), but if it has mearly been intercepted. This is quite handy because now you know immediately if you need to somehow change things since your data is even POSSIBLY compromised. Really cool stuff.
I must reiterate, IANAC (cryptographer).
Indeed, 24-24.25GHz is allocated in the US to the Amateur service. So, use 24.25-25GHz, or 23.5-24GHz. It's only 250MHz when you're talking frequences in the GHz range. Very easy to avoid.
Also, I wouldn't be surprised if the FCC allows use of that band by unliscensed Part 15 users on a non-interference basis (ex: The 2.4GHz band your Wi-Fi network runs on is also allocated to the Amateur service, but you can use it anyway as long as you don't cause me interference). If a spread spectrum mode or similar is used, any Amateurs using that band are unlikely to even notice.
Also, propagation at 24GHz is basically line of sight. Unless you point this thing at my receiver, I'm probably not going to know you ever transmitted, even if I'm looking for it!
Actually, I have quite the same problem with DDR.
I am now to the point where I can do every single song on a DDRMAX2 machine (though I can't always muster up enough stamina for MAX300 or Maxx Unlimited). This isn't because I'm "that good". I certainly couldn't sight read many of the 9s. It's because I've practically memorized the song (at least when the steps are, not the actual sequences).
When the local arcade got a new Extreme arcade I found that there were actually a couple 8 footers that I didn't pass on my first try. While it's annoying losing your money, it's quite fun to get thrown a loop on some stream pattern you don't see very often or some more odd gallop-8th-16th step sequences.
Though don't get me started on the "100% not upbeats or downbeats" song that is memories (the 4th stage on the Naoki Neo-Standard oni course that is keeping me at #5 on this machine).
To all those skeptical about this, they are being serious. I personally lost weight (though I'm starting to gain it back...in muscle in my legs...) doing DDR. Also, I'm much more engergetic since starting to play DDR about a year ago.
Yes, RedOctane does sell some expensive gear, but if you really like playing DDR it's well worth it if you want to play at home. Some people have indicated that the Ignition pads (their top of the line soft pad) doesn't last very long. I can't confirm how long they last, but a local club has 8 of them. 6 of them still work a year after they were purchased (with numerous people jumping on them like crazy every wednesday except during the summer) and the 2 that don't work seem to have a problem with controller somewhere (the sensors still work!).
Regarding the weight loss, it is not immediately evident! Expect to actually gain a little weight first for those of you who are scale crazy (you know, it's those muscle things). You have to gain some muscle to actually move around before you can start burning up excess fat.
Also, just like any other workout, don't forget to warm up!! Stretch before you begin. Start off with easier songs. Etc. I swear I almost gave myself a heart attack last night because I just stepped right on to the pad and attempted Maxx Unlimited (for those who are curious, I made it to the freeze, though I have passed before...yes, on Maniac difficulty).
Also, don't get discouraged if you can't do it! Some people I know who are actually quite good now couldn't even pass "one footers" (the easiest under the difficulty ranking system) when they started. Practice, and you *will* get better (nobody just steps onto a DDR machine and starts playing on Maniac).
Also remember that you can check it out before committing to anything in the way of home gaming. Many arcades now have DDR machines in them. Usually you can get three songs (if you don't fail) for $0.75-$1.00 just to try out. Many arcades now won't even fail you on your first song if you're playing on basic difficulty (called light on newer arcades).
Anyway, give it a try if you're interested. There's certainly nothing to lose, other than weight!
--MonMotha
While not the best card in the world, it does work (And is supported in linux if you want to run that on your PDA) and has an external antenna connection available with little modding. The D-Link DCF-660W has an antenna connector right under the plastic cover.
It's a CF card, so it will work in your mentioned PDAs. Just pop the plastic off, figure out what the heck that connector is, and hook up your pringles can.
http://users.erols.com/chare/elec.htm
Check it out for yourself. That's a handy dandy table compiled from the datasheets for all common procs (the opterons are on there, and I will compare both 32 bit and 64 bit offerings from Intel and AMD).
The Athlon XP 3200+ (2.2GHz Barton core) is said to dissipate a maximum of 76.8W of heat (that's a lot), normally about 60.4W. This appears to be one of AMDs hottest chips (the famed "melting thunderbird" puts out a maximum of 72W according to the datasheet).
The Intel P4 3.2Ghz (presumably comparable to the 3200+ if you believe the speed ratings, which overall they seem to be at least close) is designed to dissipate a whopping 82W of heat, and no maximum is given. 82 > 72.
The Opteron-246 (2.0GHz) is designed to dissipate 80.6W of heat in normal operation (check the spec sheet for that definition).
The Intel Itanium-2 900 (slowest, lowest heat 64 bit offering from Intel) is designed to dissipate 90W of heat. 90 > 80.6. The fastest Itanium from Intel listed on this page (Itanium-2 1.5G) dissipates a humongous 107W! Go find a 100W light bulb for a quick comparison. Of course, they are dissipating it over an area of about 1 cm^2 (not sure of the exact core size on the itaniums, may be bigger).
Basically, the Intel procs actually put out MORE heat than comparable AMDs. That's not to say that AMD chips run cool. Indeed, my tbird system keeps the area nice and toasty (then again, I can use my P4m laptop as a hand warmer too!). x86 chips just tend to run very hot these days.
I would presume s/he's casting it to type void so that a very pedantic person wouldn't complain about her/his not checking the return status.
- gEDA (gSchem, and friends)
- TrageSym for assistance with making your symbols and toutorial
- PCB (I hear decent version are actually getting decent, amazing)
People: There's lots of them, see my link to openhardware above, soemone linked to opencores, etc. There's a community for this.Boards can be had fairly cheap (say $40 each) even in rather small quantity. Or for small projects you could always etch your own.
The only issue is chips. ASICs and such, well, aren't cheap in small quantity. However, FPGAs, once you get past the initial investment int he hardware, can be usable in small projects. This stuff is certainly out of my league though.
Open Hardware Project
Enjoy. Most of it's still rather raw, and most of it's based off m68k, so don't expect to run "real" linux on it (uClinux is often the objective though).
Well, currently, there are HP employees (researchers, formerly Compaq, formerly DEC employees) helping with making it work on HP iPAQ units. This helps the iPAQ porting efforts go quicker than ports to other company's handhelds. However, the product cycle time on iPAQs seems to have gotten pretty short recently, and we're having troubel keeping up with the model families as they come out (54xx support is appearing, 19xx bootldr work is in progress currently).
Dell doesn't exactly provide info for these projects. Most of this is entirely reverse engineered (which is partially why WinCE is still needed to do HW init, but also as a bootstrap in this case). I'm amazed he's managed to get a kernel booting, let alone OPIE running!
Apparently it's economically feasable to sell a PDA with WinCE (pronounce like prince) on it and develop linux to run on the side!
A check out handhelds.org for info on that one. Yes, you can run linux on Compaq, pardon me, HP, iPAQs. Yes it runs pretty well. Oh, and yes we run X11 just fine thank you (and my X server itself is about 800-900kB, not too shabby).
If X11 isn't for you, you can of course run OPIE (basically an opensource fork of QPE, which is what runs on the Zaurus). Still works great.
Oh, and as for feasability, take a look at the Zaurus. They still make them, don't they?