To be perfectly honest, is the computer on a ship going to be networked externally? Maybe the control systems on board are linked by a network, but surely there is no need for vital systems to be connected to the outside world?
If the ship needs a internal network connected to an open network, then it should be entirelly physically separate to the control systems. No firewalls, no fancy security measures. Just no route between the two.
More of an issue is software reliability and stability. I won't get into the linux/windows argument, but generally, a more stable, stripped down system can be easily achieved with linux. In windows, you run the whole OS, no two ways about it, even if it just adds to instability and problems.
Generally, on essential computer systems, such as those on planes, radar, life support systems, and sattelites, are as simple as possible, and undergo rigerous testing. The development is often frozen early on because of this, resulting in reduced features, but better overall performance. It can take several years for changes to propagate throught the system... this can be annoying if it is as simple as a GUI change (say, one display needs to be frequently accessed, but requires several button presses, where another, rarely used display has instant access off the yoke).
Hardware reliability could be a problem as well - though I should imagine these systems are ready built by people who know what they are doing. I wouldn't trust off the shelf boxes and bog standard cat 5 linking them.
Redundant systems are probably a very good idea - as is some form of power conditioning and UPS system, as ships power may not be the best.
There is a lot to consider, but I think you may just as well turn to someone who has experience with aviation computers as well as someone who knows a lot about closed network security.
And imagine.... maybe the dodgy oil tanker plot in hackers could come true...
What's wrong with the processor? It suits the job. Low power, low cost. People don't buy these things for a mobile computer - PalmOS isn't supposed to be a rival to windows.
Synchronisation software allows "documents" on the device to be used on a PC fine.
And not everything has to be unix compatible. 90% of the population don't give a shit - and the companies are out there to sell as many as possible.
I dont know about everyone else - but I find KDE, Gnome, wmaker, and all the others very slow compared to MS Windows....
Before I get replies about KDE and gnome being resource hogging, slow, bloated, too many features... that is what I want. I want to have a nice looking, easy to use desktop. With a nice file manager, good web browser, extensive control panel, something that rivals windows. I don't want the simplest windows manager available so I can get similar performace to XP running on the same hardware.
With KDE, Netscape takes a good 10 seconds to load. Konqueror isn't much better. Fair enough, gimp loads quicker than photoshop. But when I can load internet explorer in a blink on a win98 machine, I find this frustrating. When Mandrake control center takes 20 seconds to come up, and windows control panel on a second or two...
Am I missing something? It says it can "project the internet"... it also says for dvd and vhs. The packages for sale (couple of hundred quid) certainly don't include video projectors.
It looks very yellow even with red or green text next to it though - I think it depends on your monitor and how bright it is, and the contrast. Most geeks have the brightness lower than ordinary people (who have the annoying tendency to push contrast and brigtness to the top).
Though if you set up your monitor right, you should easily be able to tell the difference.
A lot of networks are 100Mbps - an LED would not be able to keep up with this.
LEDs can pulse at 10Mhz, but this is pushing them to the limits, and it would not be the same simple task as before. They themselves say that theoretically it is possible.
I'm not sure, but 10baseT actually changes state at a higher frequency than 10Mhz.
Also, the driver circuit it likely to be one transistor. They will use the lowest price part. This may not like operating at such high frequencies.
The network side of any device needs to be of higher quality than status LEDs, HUI, anthing like that.
And yes, I did read the article, thanks.
I can't actually think of a single person I know who has a legal copy of anything above windows 95. No one bothers. Same with application software.
There isn't a bit of guilt about it either. You don't even contemplate buying it. If it's obscure software, then you have to ask around a little, but it's no hassle.
Your payment - you copy it and pass it round more.
Over time, you notice that people that read and post on Slashdot are extremely misinformed, narrow minded, and self centred.
There are at least 50 posts now on this story claiming it is a hoax. It's clear from many of these that few have actually read the synopsis at the top of the paper, never mind the rest of it.
It is not talking about 10Mbps communications. It is talking about lower data rate comms, like modems, serial lines, and the like.
It does work, only on a small amount of devices. It is short range. This doesn't make it a hoax.
TEMPEST is at a stage where it is hard to perform - we're talking government/big company level to manage anything impressive or useful. Take a look at this tempest radio site. Neat, but not very useful.
If you have no idea what you are talking about or don't have anything useful to add, keep quiet. Is it just so you can get your karmas up???
A video camera is about the worst optical detector that you could use.
If you read it, they use photodiodes, which can have extremely fast response times. It is possible to use lenses to only "see" a small area from a distance.
56K? A £1 photodiode would do, with some more circuitry, perhaps £10, then a scope to look at it, or a PC with a ADC. Simple, and cheap
Only applicable to low data rates and short range
on
LED Lights: Friend or Foe?
·
· Score: 2, Informative
I don't think we have too much to worry about here. They have proved it to work (supposedly, no evidence) on 56kbps. Most results are for 14.4kbps or less. This is for modems - generally they have TD/RD lights which are direct indications of the RS232 lines, so show data.
NICs, routers, switches, and hubs, tend to slow down the light flashes, or flash to packets, rather than bits. It makes it far easier to see what is going on. An LED would have difficulty keeping up with the high data rates as well (as well as any driver circuits).
It could be possible on a switch that has activity lights for all the network to ascertain which ones have most traffic, and hence gateways/DNS servers, but these things are generally found out in much easier ways.
It seems as if most of the posts before this are from people who didn't read the article, and are claiming it can't be true. RTFA.
Constructive comment, well done. A spelling mistake, definately removed the entire point of the post. Hey, if you are going to post like this, why not get an account, so we can pick through all your informative, interesting, and humerous posts and find spelling mistakes?
Say GIMP to any X user and they will know what you are talking about.
Say LILO to pretty much any linux user, and again, they will know what you are talking about.
Joe, not as well known, but many do use it.
Firestarter differentiates the tool from any one of the hundreds of others out there.
If GIMP was called as "ximageedit" or something, then is is long, and hard to guess. Most of the easy names have gone. If firestarter was called "simplefirewallconftool8" then i would never remember it.
The power in linux results from being able to use simple tools together to perform complex tasks. There are many tools that do similar jobs, but are more suited to tasks in certain respects. You can't just call a tool "firewall" - how would you tell any differently from the actual daemon, program, or config tool?
The list goes on. Linux is full of weird and funny names. Personally I think it helps you remember the names of tools better. It's called Sorceror Linux, so why not have a command called cast? Seems logical for me.
Rather than call something a long name that may be descriptive, and accurate, why not use these shorter, easier to remember alternatives. It makes it a far better UI.
You don't want lots of smaller capacitors joined - you want one big capacitor. Having small capacitors wastes space with packaging, wiring, and insulation.
Batteries are high energy density and are designed for slow discharge cycles. Capacitors are (generally) designed for quicker discharge cycles. If you got an average battery and charged and discharged it at any rate (50Hz), it would last a very short length of time before failure.
Granted, however, that new big (1F, 2F up to 10F) capacitors have been made, and are lightweight, but still bulky. Their main application is in power smoothing (rudeboy cars etc.).
And I point out again, that radio waves, over any given distance, will travel slightly slower than light. In the earths atmosphere, they will travel slower. I did not know the exact terms for it, but gilroy pointed out other effects. Magnetic fields and ionised gases, more so than any conventional medium, will slow radio waves down. It does depend on wavelength.
This means that radio transmissions are slower than light transmissions. It wasn't really the issue of the post either, I was interested in fast than light communications
Incidentally, they have known that radio waves travel slower than light for many years. Look up data on radio telescopes.
Radio waves actually tends to propagate slightly slower than light. Which is why I said that. Going 1% faster over these distances would save a considerable amount of time.
I know that these probes are currently unmanned - but there is always talk of putting people on mars, or sending crews to far away galaxies.
What do they do for communications then? I mean, Pioneer 10 isn't that far away in terms of the space that we know of. And it takes 22hrs to receive a response.
Is there anything that will go faster than radio (light does, but isn't as easy to use I don't think). Even with light, it still takes an extremely long time.
Does anyone know what sort of data rates you can support over these distances, and what kind of mad FEC and other tricks you would have to implement to make a usable system?
I suppose if they do all this going through tunnels that warp time and space, they'll work out something better than conventional radio, it's just that in films, they seem to have things like phones, never mind being a million light years away
It's a tiny little tethered helicopter which uses a motor and propellor at the end of each blade, so it doesn't work quite the same as a normal rc helicopter, but the control box means that the controls are the same.
We've got a system on the Odeon cinemas ticket booking line in the UK. First, it asks you which cinema you would like to book the ticket at:
Computer: Which cinema would you like to book tickets at?
You: Kensington
Computer: You chose Kensington. Say yes if this is correct.
You: Yes
Computer: Which cinema would you like to book tickets at? Please speak clearly.
You: Kensington
Computer: You chose Kensington. Say yes if this is correct.
You: YES
Computer: Which cinema would you like to book tickets at? Please speak clearly, or hold for an operator.
You: Kensington
Computer: You chose Kensington. Say yes if this is correct.
You: FUCK OFF
Computer: Kensington is correct.
It can recognise hundreds of cinema names, but always has a difficulty with yes..
When it voice recognition first came out on voicemail boxes, we'd derive great amusement from saying random stuff into the phone and seeing what number it would guess...
Slashdot Mirror
To be perfectly honest, is the computer on a ship going to be networked externally? Maybe the control systems on board are linked by a network, but surely there is no need for vital systems to be connected to the outside world?
If the ship needs a internal network connected to an open network, then it should be entirelly physically separate to the control systems. No firewalls, no fancy security measures. Just no route between the two.
More of an issue is software reliability and stability. I won't get into the linux/windows argument, but generally, a more stable, stripped down system can be easily achieved with linux. In windows, you run the whole OS, no two ways about it, even if it just adds to instability and problems.
Generally, on essential computer systems, such as those on planes, radar, life support systems, and sattelites, are as simple as possible, and undergo rigerous testing. The development is often frozen early on because of this, resulting in reduced features, but better overall performance. It can take several years for changes to propagate throught the system... this can be annoying if it is as simple as a GUI change (say, one display needs to be frequently accessed, but requires several button presses, where another, rarely used display has instant access off the yoke).
Hardware reliability could be a problem as well - though I should imagine these systems are ready built by people who know what they are doing. I wouldn't trust off the shelf boxes and bog standard cat 5 linking them.
Redundant systems are probably a very good idea - as is some form of power conditioning and UPS system, as ships power may not be the best.
There is a lot to consider, but I think you may just as well turn to someone who has experience with aviation computers as well as someone who knows a lot about closed network security.
And imagine.... maybe the dodgy oil tanker plot in hackers could come true...
What's wrong with the processor? It suits the job. Low power, low cost. People don't buy these things for a mobile computer - PalmOS isn't supposed to be a rival to windows.
Synchronisation software allows "documents" on the device to be used on a PC fine.
And not everything has to be unix compatible. 90% of the population don't give a shit - and the companies are out there to sell as many as possible.
Didn't you here - there is a backdoor built into a new branch of the kernel development.
Shhhh! Don't tell AOL - it's part of Linus' plan to take over the world.
I dont know about everyone else - but I find KDE, Gnome, wmaker, and all the others very slow compared to MS Windows....
Before I get replies about KDE and gnome being resource hogging, slow, bloated, too many features... that is what I want. I want to have a nice looking, easy to use desktop. With a nice file manager, good web browser, extensive control panel, something that rivals windows. I don't want the simplest windows manager available so I can get similar performace to XP running on the same hardware.
With KDE, Netscape takes a good 10 seconds to load. Konqueror isn't much better. Fair enough, gimp loads quicker than photoshop. But when I can load internet explorer in a blink on a win98 machine, I find this frustrating. When Mandrake control center takes 20 seconds to come up, and windows control panel on a second or two...
They are the reasons I stay with windows....
Am I missing something? It says it can "project the internet"... it also says for dvd and vhs. The packages for sale (couple of hundred quid) certainly don't include video projectors.
How does this work?
It looks very yellow even with red or green text next to it though - I think it depends on your monitor and how bright it is, and the contrast. Most geeks have the brightness lower than ordinary people (who have the annoying tendency to push contrast and brigtness to the top).
Though if you set up your monitor right, you should easily be able to tell the difference.
A lot of networks are 100Mbps - an LED would not be able to keep up with this. LEDs can pulse at 10Mhz, but this is pushing them to the limits, and it would not be the same simple task as before. They themselves say that theoretically it is possible. I'm not sure, but 10baseT actually changes state at a higher frequency than 10Mhz. Also, the driver circuit it likely to be one transistor. They will use the lowest price part. This may not like operating at such high frequencies. The network side of any device needs to be of higher quality than status LEDs, HUI, anthing like that. And yes, I did read the article, thanks.
I can't actually think of a single person I know who has a legal copy of anything above windows 95. No one bothers. Same with application software.
There isn't a bit of guilt about it either. You don't even contemplate buying it. If it's obscure software, then you have to ask around a little, but it's no hassle.
Your payment - you copy it and pass it round more.
Over time, you notice that people that read and post on Slashdot are extremely misinformed, narrow minded, and self centred.
There are at least 50 posts now on this story claiming it is a hoax. It's clear from many of these that few have actually read the synopsis at the top of the paper, never mind the rest of it.
It is not talking about 10Mbps communications. It is talking about lower data rate comms, like modems, serial lines, and the like.
It does work, only on a small amount of devices. It is short range. This doesn't make it a hoax.
TEMPEST is at a stage where it is hard to perform - we're talking government/big company level to manage anything impressive or useful. Take a look at this tempest radio site. Neat, but not very useful.
If you have no idea what you are talking about or don't have anything useful to add, keep quiet. Is it just so you can get your karmas up???
A video camera is about the worst optical detector that you could use.
If you read it, they use photodiodes, which can have extremely fast response times. It is possible to use lenses to only "see" a small area from a distance.
56K? A £1 photodiode would do, with some more circuitry, perhaps £10, then a scope to look at it, or a PC with a ADC. Simple, and cheap
I don't think we have too much to worry about here. They have proved it to work (supposedly, no evidence) on 56kbps. Most results are for 14.4kbps or less. This is for modems - generally they have TD/RD lights which are direct indications of the RS232 lines, so show data.
NICs, routers, switches, and hubs, tend to slow down the light flashes, or flash to packets, rather than bits. It makes it far easier to see what is going on. An LED would have difficulty keeping up with the high data rates as well (as well as any driver circuits).
It could be possible on a switch that has activity lights for all the network to ascertain which ones have most traffic, and hence gateways/DNS servers, but these things are generally found out in much easier ways.
It seems as if most of the posts before this are from people who didn't read the article, and are claiming it can't be true. RTFA.
SorcerEr Linux, dumbass.
Constructive comment, well done. A spelling mistake, definately removed the entire point of the post. Hey, if you are going to post like this, why not get an account, so we can pick through all your informative, interesting, and humerous posts and find spelling mistakes?
I did, and was saying, why not have a command called cast? Why does this imply not reading the article. I've come across the distro before as well.
And "You haven't read the article did you?" - should be "You haven't read the article have you?" or "You didn't read the article did you?"
Say GIMP to any X user and they will know what you are talking about.
Say LILO to pretty much any linux user, and again, they will know what you are talking about.
Joe, not as well known, but many do use it.
Firestarter differentiates the tool from any one of the hundreds of others out there.
If GIMP was called as "ximageedit" or something, then is is long, and hard to guess. Most of the easy names have gone. If firestarter was called "simplefirewallconftool8" then i would never remember it.
The power in linux results from being able to use simple tools together to perform complex tasks. There are many tools that do similar jobs, but are more suited to tasks in certain respects. You can't just call a tool "firewall" - how would you tell any differently from the actual daemon, program, or config tool?
GIMP? LILO? Firestarter? Joe? Gnome?
The list goes on. Linux is full of weird and funny names. Personally I think it helps you remember the names of tools better. It's called Sorceror Linux, so why not have a command called cast? Seems logical for me.
Rather than call something a long name that may be descriptive, and accurate, why not use these shorter, easier to remember alternatives. It makes it a far better UI.
You don't want lots of smaller capacitors joined - you want one big capacitor. Having small capacitors wastes space with packaging, wiring, and insulation.
Batteries are high energy density and are designed for slow discharge cycles. Capacitors are (generally) designed for quicker discharge cycles. If you got an average battery and charged and discharged it at any rate (50Hz), it would last a very short length of time before failure.
Granted, however, that new big (1F, 2F up to 10F) capacitors have been made, and are lightweight, but still bulky. Their main application is in power smoothing (rudeboy cars etc.).
And I point out again, that radio waves, over any given distance, will travel slightly slower than light. In the earths atmosphere, they will travel slower. I did not know the exact terms for it, but gilroy pointed out other effects. Magnetic fields and ionised gases, more so than any conventional medium, will slow radio waves down. It does depend on wavelength.
This means that radio transmissions are slower than light transmissions. It wasn't really the issue of the post either, I was interested in fast than light communications
Incidentally, they have known that radio waves travel slower than light for many years. Look up data on radio telescopes.
Radio waves actually tends to propagate slightly slower than light. Which is why I said that. Going 1% faster over these distances would save a considerable amount of time.
I know that these probes are currently unmanned - but there is always talk of putting people on mars, or sending crews to far away galaxies.
What do they do for communications then? I mean, Pioneer 10 isn't that far away in terms of the space that we know of. And it takes 22hrs to receive a response.
Is there anything that will go faster than radio (light does, but isn't as easy to use I don't think). Even with light, it still takes an extremely long time.
Does anyone know what sort of data rates you can support over these distances, and what kind of mad FEC and other tricks you would have to implement to make a usable system?
I suppose if they do all this going through tunnels that warp time and space, they'll work out something better than conventional radio, it's just that in films, they seem to have things like phones, never mind being a million light years away
If you want a really cool toy - get one of these.
Snelflight hoverfly helicopter
It's a tiny little tethered helicopter which uses a motor and propellor at the end of each blade, so it doesn't work quite the same as a normal rc helicopter, but the control box means that the controls are the same.
Quite expensive, but very cool
In reply to your comment, it's great on the cinema names, but often has difficulty confirming it afterwards with a simple "Yes or no".
We've got a system on the Odeon cinemas ticket booking line in the UK. First, it asks you which cinema you would like to book the ticket at: Computer: Which cinema would you like to book tickets at? You: Kensington Computer: You chose Kensington. Say yes if this is correct. You: Yes Computer: Which cinema would you like to book tickets at? Please speak clearly. You: Kensington Computer: You chose Kensington. Say yes if this is correct. You: YES Computer: Which cinema would you like to book tickets at? Please speak clearly, or hold for an operator. You: Kensington Computer: You chose Kensington. Say yes if this is correct. You: FUCK OFF Computer: Kensington is correct. It can recognise hundreds of cinema names, but always has a difficulty with yes.. When it voice recognition first came out on voicemail boxes, we'd derive great amusement from saying random stuff into the phone and seeing what number it would guess...