The big surprise is that it's round not rectangular. the current one is 7.75" x 5.81" the round one is 7.6" in diameter, which has exactly the same area. But it's round so it's more aesthetically pleasing. You can hold it from any orientation and it's the same simplifying the interface. There is a single button is in the middle on the back.
I agree that this is a candidate for a database. One problem with data bases for researchers is that generally one does not know the right schema before hand ond one is dealing with ad hoc contingencies a lot. Another is portability to machines you don't control or that are not easily networked. A final problem is archival persistence. I can't think of a single data base scheme that has lasted 5 let alone ten years and still function without being maintained. Files can do that.
So if you want some bandaid approaches:
1) if you have a mac then, uses aliases rather than symbolic links. alias don't get messed up if you move the file.
2) use hard links rather than symbolic links. THe problem here is that these can get unlinked if you plan to modify the file. But if the file will never change these are just as space efficient and a softlink but tolerate renaming. They can't span across different disks however.
3) poormans database: give your files a numerical name that chages, typically the date and time they were created. then have a flat file that list the files in some set for each category.
4) low tech database. If you decide to use a database then choose one that is likely never to go out of style. for example pick something like a perl-tie. those are so close to the language that they probably won't get depricated in the next 10 years.
youngster,
prior to the mac, all in ones were more like game consols than computers. Really cheap crap. with windows mouse pointer interface to GUI based programs was unheard of. Text on screen was graphical on macs not generated from a character rom. So no there really were no worthy consumer systems all in ones at the time unless you want to count LISA or the Xerox systems.
Explorers discover or invent things. Pioneers are early adopter to integrate and make useful these inventions. Settlers reap and create a bussiness ecosystem around the places proven by pioneers. Apple has mainly been a pioneer, and microsoft a settler. Apple did not invent the GUI or Dynamic Memory, or Switching power supplies, or Post script or the Mouse. But they did pioneer the use of those technologies. Microsoft and dell/compaq settled those. They did not invent or truly pioneer MP3 players but they did advance that sufficiently to call it their own and then they settled it. Apple did not invent unix, but they did pioneer moving it from the etherial workstation market to the consumer market and now they have settled unix in the consumer market. Other than their pioneering in search, Google is purely a settler in every market they occupy. Unix on devices, e-mail, documnet process, thin clients (aka "the cloud"). If you want to call google a pioneer then you have to think of it as a meta-pioneer: integration is really what they are about. But That is almost the definition of settling.
Microsoft did pioneering work in a few areas such as windows GUI on embedded devices. You might say that was apple or palm however.
Apple to it's credit actually does a lot of exploration you don't ever hear about. ARM processors? Power-PC processors? Firewire? Conformal Batteries? But they don't really play that angle up a lot. Lately I've been really impressed with microsoft's investment in the visualization field so maybe they are starting to innovate again.
I also suspect that Microsoft has a shot at becoming a settler in the "cloud" field. THeir new Azure technology seems to be just what bussinesses of many different sizes are going to need to go to managed IT.
It makes very little sense to sandbox the application. sandboxing should be delegated from the application to the OS. I note that mac OSX have this built into the OS, but only a few applications like xgrid actually use it. The good news is that apps don't need to be sandbox aware to be sandboxed after the fact. I saw on mac osxhints were someone wrote a sandbox config file for firefox that forces firefox to run with reduced privledges and disk access.
Making it legal is the backdoor way to give them the right to make it illegal. Prior to this your right to mod it came from the right of first sale. you own it. you can mod it. Now that right has been given you to a law. It shows that you did not have the right to mod it till it was explicity granted. Now it will be possible to take that right away.
If you think I'm paranoid then you don't know history. The way the government historically gains power is to grant you rights you already have, then modify them later.
By the way I forgot to mention that there is a known way to Time travel without violating the grandfather paradox or using post selection. It was the basis for the movie primer, and it actually occurs, mathematically at least, for small particles.
The observation is that when a photon splits into a particle+antiparticle and then later those anihilate you can think of this as a particle going forward in time and another particle going backward in time, whose trajectories intersect at the beginning and the end.
Thus it is possible to travel forward in time as long as the person in the future decides to travel backward in time.
THe movie Primer created a machine that ensured that in a way that you could not avoid this. Thus, as far as I know, it's the only time travel movie that actually is technically possible and devoid of grandfather problems.
By the way if you rent this, plan on watching it twice. Then again a few days later after you google the shit out of all the things that you did not understand. Let me just tell you that EVERYTHING in this movie, no matter how little sense it makes to you, actually makes perfect sense. But the movie does not explain itself.
You can not have any motivation or objective if you are going to travel otherwise the act of time travel is a paradox. SMBC put it thusly: if you are travelling to change some outcome, and you succeeded, you would not have had the motivation to time travel to make that change.
SMBC's conclusion was that only nitwits have the capacity to time travel and the fact that there seem to be so many confirms that time travel must be going on right now.
But another way to say this is, you can only choose objectives that either already happened in your past or are inevitable no matter what you do.
For example, You could however travel with the objective of sinking the Titanic, but not the objective of preventing the sinking. If you saved the titanic, it would never occur to you to try to save the titanic.
For example, If your objective was to save Abe Lincoln and you succeeded, then it never would have occurred to your pre-travel self that you needed to go back and save abe lincoln.
What all this adds up to I think is that time travel is still forbidden but observational time travel-- gathering information-- is not forbidden.
THere is an interesting proof regarding the computability of any proposition by David Wolpert that shows time travel is forbidden unless the information you gain by doing so is probabilistic or faulty. That is he proves rigorously that it is not possible to answer any arbitrary true/false question about the past with perfect fidelity. Thus time travel that preserves information with fidelity is forbidden. Error prone time travel is however allowed.
Oh I like how objective C syntax makes the message passing aspect more what you really mean. Variables should have names not just be positional. THat's how python does it with **kwdargs. objective C hits the sweetspot between purely positional and purely key-value calling signatures. it's nice.
but it annoys the hell out of people coming from either direction. that's what I meant by off-putting
I suppose it's worth expanding my polymorphism comment slightly. People who think that objecitve C's Messaging concept is just semantic sugar are not understanding it clearly.
In objective C you don't "call an object method" but rather you pass a message to the object. THe object, if it chooses to reply, does not "return" a value but instead sends back a reply message.
What's the difference? Well in implementation very often nothing. The message that is sent is a message name and a list of calling args and their names. 99.9% of the time the object chooses to resolve this message by finding a method that corresponds to that prototype. So that looks just like C++. But the thing is, it does not have to do that. It could choose to re-interpret the message. And in particular it might use some other recently method added later than "linking" time to the object. Thus how the method calls are bound does not happen at link time. They often are prebound then for efficiency, but they do not have to be. The same is true of the return values.
THis makes it more like java in a way.
But the nice thing is that the overall syntax is just a thin layer on basic C.
Another reason that Objective C is so nice now is that it had a chance to mature and modernize out of the spotlight. Having lived mainly in the apple ecosystem it has a lot of standard libs now with dictionaries and core data tied to persistent storage, MVCs, and so forth that are all (mostly) self consistent and not the tower of babble on finds in java. THings like get-set commands can be handled by decorators rather than explicit coding. That's cool because by letting the compiler pre-processor define what is in a get set you can inherit all sorts of things like listeners binding to your variables that you did not explicitly encode. Just recomoile your code and poof you inherit all the new features.
Look Java was a great try it just got a bit out of hand but it's close to what is needed.
To me the ideal language branches in two possible directions: something close to python+static_typing_capability or Objective_C_but_with_a_different_syntactic_form
I strongly suspect that that language that is as close to my ideal of python+static_typing is groovy. It has an almost seemless path from dynamic to compiled in it's syntax and java libs.
Objective C, everytime I look at it, I become convinced is what C++ should have been. All decisions seem really smart in hindsight. And it's very very minimimalist compared to C++. At the same time it has all the late binding advantages of Java. The only thing off-putting about it, is the method syntax. And even that, when you look carefully, is actually a really clever way to make things poly morphic.
Now that open source has embraces the flash standard, no doubt Adobe will add proprietary additions so sow incompatibility.
The protentially nice thing about this howerve is that if 1) it's efficient 2) not buggy 3) supports DRM
then it answers apple's complaints about flash and Youtube's complaints about H264. The problme for apple was that it would be insane to make your player beholden to a closed 3rd party app, espeically one from a company that hsitorically dragged it's heels in incorproating your platforms new features. Apple thrives on offering distinguishing features and adobe smothers them if they don't incorporate them.
But if the source is open apple is free to make sure it keeps up. So long as it is not as buggy as flash was.
Likewise youtube complained they could not monetize Video under H264 as well as under flash. the ability to have linking and overlays and such was required for the cash register.
Again this is now possible if this supports DRM.
One nice thing is that since apple already has a sandboxing system in both OSX and iOS, having it open source may allow them to get a tighter sandbox. No need to count on Adobe's sandbox working.
The statute of limitations is a red herring -- it only begins to run when a contract breach is discovered (or reasonable should have been), not when the contract is signed. You can have a contract signed 50 years ago, but if you breach it today, the statute of limitations start to run today.
The purported breach was arguably only discovered by the plaintiff due to recent press accounts of potential selling of Facebook or portions thereof. Until some act is taken that indicates an intent to breach, a party to a contract has the right to rely on the expectation that the other party will fulfill his obligations under the contract.
Yeah I guess he just didn't notice that he owned 50% of facebook when that's the second paragraph in the contract.
In 2009, New York Attorney General Andrew M. Cuomo obtained a restraining order against Allegany Pellets, a western New York wood pellet company owned by Ceglia and his wife Iasia. Cuomo accused the company of defrauding consumers by taking $200,000 in orders but not delivering any products or issuing any refunds. That case is reportedly ongoing.
An odd detail is that 84% number is said to be as of 2004. Why 2004?
ping 208.102.223.137 PING 208.102.223.137 (208.102.223.137): 56 data bytes 64 bytes from 208.102.223.137: icmp_seq=0 ttl=49 time=91.270 ms 64 bytes from 208.102.223.137: icmp_seq=1 ttl=49 time=102.547 ms 64 bytes from 208.102.223.137: icmp_seq=2 ttl=49 time=85.332 ms 64 bytes from 208.102.223.137: icmp_seq=3 ttl=49 time=91.327 ms
traceroute to 208.102.223.137 (208.102.223.137), 64 hops max, 52 byte packets
7 pos-0-10-0-0-cr01.denver.co.ibone.comcast.net (68.86.86.22) 44.308 ms 36.699 ms 26.050 ms
8 pos-0-7-0-0-cr01.dallas.tx.ibone.comcast.net (68.86.86.210) 72.804 ms 70.635 ms 86.250 ms
9 pos-0-1-0-0-pe01.1950stemmons.tx.ibone.comcast.net (68.86.86.94) 85.642 ms 80.102 ms 83.993 ms 10 sl-st31-dal-0-5-2-0.sprintlink.net (144.232.25.33) 75.552 ms 85.975 ms 69.215 ms 11 sl-crs2-fw-0-6-3-0.sprintlink.net (144.232.19.179) 91.875 ms
sl-crs1-fw-0-6-5-0.sprintlink.net (144.232.19.59) 74.784 ms
sl-crs3-fw-0-0-2-0.sprintlink.net (144.232.18.73) 96.481 ms 12 sl-crs2-atl-0-8-0-0.sprintlink.net (144.232.18.148) 166.932 ms
sl-crs1-atl-0-8-0-0.sprintlink.net (144.232.18.146) 143.757 ms
sl-crs2-fw-0-7-0-0.sprintlink.net (144.232.1.46) 72.344 ms 13 sl-crs1-atl-0-6-0-0.sprintlink.net (144.232.8.20) 167.941 ms 109.164 ms
sl-crs2-atl-0-8-0-0.sprintlink.net (144.232.18.148) 116.084 ms 14 sl-crs1-dc-0-4-0-1.sprintlink.net (144.232.8.147) 110.353 ms
sl-st31-ash-0-2-0-0.sprintlink.net (144.232.25.15) 111.318 ms
sl-crs2-dc-0-4-0-1.sprintlink.net (144.232.8.161) 151.998 ms 15 sl-cinci3-362168-0.sprintlink.net (144.228.205.54) 110.992 ms 104.999 ms 111.631 ms 16 10ge0-2-0-0.core2.core.fuse.net (216.68.7.199) 133.034 ms
sl-cinci3-362168-0.sprintlink.net (144.228.205.54) 122.794 ms
10ge0-2-0-0.core2.core.fuse.net (216.68.7.199) 136.687 ms 17 10ge1-2.sw2.core.fuse.net (216.68.7.198) 80.569 ms
10ge0-2-0-0.core2.core.fuse.net (216.68.7.199) 136.431 ms 164.560 ms 18 10ge1-2.sw2.core.fuse.net (216.68.7.198) 76.720 ms
10ge2-2.ws-osr2.zoomtown.com (216.68.7.205) 101.821 ms
10ge1-2.sw2.core.fuse.net (216.68.7.198) 78.362 ms 19 mw-esr1-72-49-32-1.fuse.net (72.49.32.1) 77.202 ms 95.935 ms 87.240 ms 20 * mw-esr1-72-49-32-1.fuse.net (72.49.32.1) 82.678 ms 80.115 ms 21 * * * 22 * * * 23 * * * 24 * * *
208.102.223.137 isn't responding on port 21 (ftp). 208.102.223.137 isn't responding on port 23 (telnet). 208.102.223.137 isn't responding on port 25 (smtp). 208.102.223.137 isn't responding on port 80 (http). 208.102.223.137 isn't responding on port 110 (pop3). 208.102.223.137 isn't responding on port 139 (netbios-ssn). 208.102.223.137 isn't responding on port 445 (microsoft-ds). 208.102.223.137 isn't responding on port 1433 (ms-sql-s). 208.102.223.137 isn't responding on port 1521 (ncube-lm). 208.102.223.137 isn't responding on port 1723 (pptp). 208.102.223.137 isn't responding on port 3306 (mysql). 208.102.223.137 isn't responding on port 3389 (ms-wbt-server). 208.102.223.137 isn't responding on port 5900 (). 208.102.223.137 isn't responding on port 8080 (webcache).
Slashdot Mirror
The big surprise is that it's round not rectangular. the current one is 7.75" x 5.81" the round one is 7.6" in diameter, which has exactly the same area. But it's round so it's more aesthetically pleasing. You can hold it from any orientation and it's the same simplifying the interface. There is a single button is in the middle on the back.
yes that was exactly my use of the word. You just can't quench your thirst there.
My feelings too. Why should I care about the scuttlebutt of the internet.
I agree that this is a candidate for a database. One problem with data bases for researchers is that generally one does not know the right schema before hand ond one is dealing with ad hoc contingencies a lot. Another is portability to machines you don't control or that are not easily networked. A final problem is archival persistence. I can't think of a single data base scheme that has lasted 5 let alone ten years and still function without being maintained. Files can do that.
So if you want some bandaid approaches:
1) if you have a mac then, uses aliases rather than symbolic links. alias don't get messed up if you move the file.
2) use hard links rather than symbolic links. THe problem here is that these can get unlinked if you plan to modify the file. But if the file will never change these are just as space efficient and a softlink but tolerate renaming. They can't span across different disks however.
3) poormans database:
give your files a numerical name that chages, typically the date and time they were created. then have a flat file that list the files in some set for each category.
4) low tech database. If you decide to use a database then choose one that is likely never to go out of style. for example pick something like a perl-tie. those are so close to the language that they probably won't get depricated in the next 10 years.
youngster,
prior to the mac, all in ones were more like game consols than computers. Really cheap crap. with windows mouse pointer interface to GUI based programs was unheard of. Text on screen was graphical on macs not generated from a character rom. So no there really were no worthy consumer systems all in ones at the time unless you want to count LISA or the Xerox systems.
Explorers discover or invent things. Pioneers are early adopter to integrate and make useful these inventions. Settlers reap and create a bussiness ecosystem around the places proven by pioneers. Apple has mainly been a pioneer, and microsoft a settler. Apple did not invent the GUI or Dynamic Memory, or Switching power supplies, or Post script or the Mouse. But they did pioneer the use of those technologies. Microsoft and dell/compaq settled those. They did not invent or truly pioneer MP3 players but they did advance that sufficiently to call it their own and then they settled it. Apple did not invent unix, but they did pioneer moving it from the etherial workstation market to the consumer market and now they have settled unix in the consumer market.
Other than their pioneering in search, Google is purely a settler in every market they occupy. Unix on devices, e-mail, documnet process, thin clients (aka "the cloud"). If you want to call google a pioneer then you have to think of it as a meta-pioneer: integration is really what they are about. But That is almost the definition of settling.
Microsoft did pioneering work in a few areas such as windows GUI on embedded devices. You might say that was apple or palm however.
Apple to it's credit actually does a lot of exploration you don't ever hear about. ARM processors? Power-PC processors? Firewire? Conformal Batteries? But they don't really play that angle up a lot. Lately I've been really impressed with microsoft's investment in the visualization field so maybe they are starting to innovate again.
I also suspect that Microsoft has a shot at becoming a settler in the "cloud" field. THeir new Azure technology seems to be just what bussinesses of many different sizes are going to need to go to managed IT.
It makes very little sense to sandbox the application. sandboxing should be delegated from the application to the OS. I note that mac OSX have this built into the OS, but only a few applications like xgrid actually use it. The good news is that apps don't need to be sandbox aware to be sandboxed after the fact. I saw on mac osxhints were someone wrote a sandbox config file for firefox that forces firefox to run with reduced privledges and disk access.
Turns out it's a GMO round-up ready pea mutant. Monsanto is suing him for using their genetic material without paying for it.
Yes it will selll like hotcakes in sun tan lotion once the label says:
BINDS TO YOU DNA
BINDS TO YOUR DNA
or
BINDS AND REARRANGES YOUR DNA!
Good golly, is it possible there is a reason mammals have not re-evolved this?
Making it legal is the backdoor way to give them the right to make it illegal. Prior to this your right to mod it came from the right of first sale. you own it. you can mod it. Now that right has been given you to a law. It shows that you did not have the right to mod it till it was explicity granted. Now it will be possible to take that right away.
If you think I'm paranoid then you don't know history. The way the government historically gains power is to grant you rights you already have, then modify them later.
By the way I forgot to mention that there is a known way to Time travel without violating the grandfather paradox or using post selection. It was the basis for the movie primer, and it actually occurs, mathematically at least, for small particles.
The observation is that when a photon splits into a particle+antiparticle and then later those anihilate you can think of this as a particle going forward in time and another particle going backward in time, whose trajectories intersect at the beginning and the end.
Thus it is possible to travel forward in time as long as the person in the future decides to travel backward in time.
THe movie Primer created a machine that ensured that in a way that you could not avoid this. Thus, as far as I know, it's the only time travel movie that actually is technically possible and devoid of grandfather problems.
By the way if you rent this, plan on watching it twice. Then again a few days later after you google the shit out of all the things that you did not understand. Let me just tell you that EVERYTHING in this movie, no matter how little sense it makes to you, actually makes perfect sense. But the movie does not explain itself.
Yesterdays SMBC had a good point:
You can not have any motivation or objective if you are going to travel otherwise the act of time travel is a paradox. SMBC put it thusly: if you are travelling to change some outcome, and you succeeded, you would not have had the motivation to time travel to make that change.
SMBC's conclusion was that only nitwits have the capacity to time travel and the fact that there seem to be so many confirms that time travel must be going on right now.
But another way to say this is, you can only choose objectives that either already happened in your past or are inevitable no matter what you do.
For example, You could however travel with the objective of sinking the Titanic, but not the objective of preventing the sinking. If you saved the titanic, it would never occur to you to try to save the titanic.
For example, If your objective was to save Abe Lincoln and you succeeded, then it never would have occurred to your pre-travel self that you needed to go back and save abe lincoln.
What all this adds up to I think is that time travel is still forbidden but observational time travel-- gathering information-- is not forbidden.
THere is an interesting proof regarding the computability of any proposition by David Wolpert that shows time travel is forbidden unless the information you gain by doing so is probabilistic or faulty. That is he proves rigorously that it is not possible to answer any arbitrary true/false question about the past with perfect fidelity. Thus time travel that preserves information with fidelity is forbidden. Error prone time travel is however allowed.
Oh I like how objective C syntax makes the message passing aspect more what you really mean. Variables should have names not just be positional. THat's how python does it with **kwdargs. objective C hits the sweetspot between purely positional and purely key-value calling signatures. it's nice.
but it annoys the hell out of people coming from either direction. that's what I meant by off-putting
I suppose it's worth expanding my polymorphism comment slightly. People who think that objecitve C's Messaging concept is just semantic sugar are not understanding it clearly.
In objective C you don't "call an object method" but rather you pass a message to the object. THe object, if it chooses to reply, does not "return" a value but instead sends back a reply message.
What's the difference? Well in implementation very often nothing. The message that is sent is a message name and a list of calling args and their names. 99.9% of the time the object chooses to resolve this message by finding a method that corresponds to that prototype. So that looks just like C++. But the thing is, it does not have to do that. It could choose to re-interpret the message. And in particular it might use some other recently method added later than "linking" time to the object. Thus how the method calls are bound does not happen at link time. They often are prebound then for efficiency, but they do not have to be. The same is true of the return values.
THis makes it more like java in a way.
But the nice thing is that the overall syntax is just a thin layer on basic C.
Another reason that Objective C is so nice now is that it had a chance to mature and modernize out of the spotlight. Having lived mainly in the apple ecosystem it has a lot of standard libs now with dictionaries and core data tied to persistent storage, MVCs, and so forth that are all (mostly) self consistent and not the tower of babble on finds in java. THings like get-set commands can be handled by decorators rather than explicit coding. That's cool because by letting the compiler pre-processor define what is in a get set you can inherit all sorts of things like listeners binding to your variables that you did not explicitly encode. Just recomoile your code and poof you inherit all the new features.
Look Java was a great try it just got a bit out of hand but it's close to what is needed.
To me the ideal language branches in two possible directions: something close to python+static_typing_capability or Objective_C_but_with_a_different_syntactic_form
I strongly suspect that that language that is as close to my ideal of python+static_typing is groovy. It has an almost seemless path from dynamic to compiled in it's syntax and java libs.
Objective C, everytime I look at it, I become convinced is what C++ should have been. All decisions seem really smart in hindsight. And it's very very minimimalist compared to C++. At the same time it has all the late binding advantages of Java. The only thing off-putting about it, is the method syntax. And even that, when you look carefully, is actually a really clever way to make things poly morphic.
Of course he still had to beg to be in griffendor
Open source software is technically incompatible with DRMs.
Uh no.
Now that open source has embraces the flash standard, no doubt Adobe will add proprietary additions so sow incompatibility.
The protentially nice thing about this howerve is that if
1) it's efficient
2) not buggy
3) supports DRM
then it answers apple's complaints about flash and Youtube's complaints about H264. The problme for apple was that it would be insane to make your player beholden to a closed 3rd party app, espeically one from a company that hsitorically dragged it's heels in incorproating your platforms new features. Apple thrives on offering distinguishing features and adobe smothers them if they don't incorporate them.
But if the source is open apple is free to make sure it keeps up. So long as it is not as buggy as flash was.
Likewise youtube complained they could not monetize Video under H264 as well as under flash. the ability to have linking and overlays and such was required for the cash register.
Again this is now possible if this supports DRM.
One nice thing is that since apple already has a sandboxing system in both OSX and iOS, having it open source may allow them to get a tighter sandbox. No need to count on Adobe's sandbox working.
The statute of limitations is a red herring -- it only begins to run when a contract breach is discovered (or reasonable should have been), not when the contract is signed. You can have a contract signed 50 years ago, but if you breach it today, the statute of limitations start to run today.
The purported breach was arguably only discovered by the plaintiff due to recent press accounts of potential selling of Facebook or portions thereof. Until some act is taken that indicates an intent to breach, a party to a contract has the right to rely on the expectation that the other party will fulfill his obligations under the contract.
Yeah I guess he just didn't notice that he owned 50% of facebook when that's the second paragraph in the contract.
see this article in cnet news. At the bottom a flash window has all the pages of the suit and the contract in the appendix. According to the contract the 50% ownership is unambiguous. it's the primary compensation and it is listed right up front. Also they show other documents indicating that the name changes were registered as ficticious (placeholder) names in NY. It's going to be interesting....
The story gets even jucier:
In 2009, New York Attorney General Andrew M. Cuomo obtained a restraining order against Allegany Pellets, a western New York wood pellet company owned by Ceglia and his wife Iasia. Cuomo accused the company of defrauding consumers by taking $200,000 in orders but not delivering any products or issuing any refunds. That case is reportedly ongoing.
An odd detail is that 84% number is said to be as of 2004. Why 2004?
His facebook account is so canceled! But I bet he could do commercials for MySpace. "I designed the look and feel of facebook, but now I use MySpace."
http://www.gorissen.info/Pierre/maps/googleMapLocation.php?lat=39.0972&lon=-84.1225&setLatLon=Set
there you go, it's on Bauer rd near the intersection with 276 in Batavia Ohio. Assuming the infosniper geolocater is working.
http://www.infosniper.net/index.php?ip_address=208.102.223.137
hostname: mw-esr1-208-102-223-137.fuse.net
ping 208.102.223.137
PING 208.102.223.137 (208.102.223.137): 56 data bytes
64 bytes from 208.102.223.137: icmp_seq=0 ttl=49 time=91.270 ms
64 bytes from 208.102.223.137: icmp_seq=1 ttl=49 time=102.547 ms
64 bytes from 208.102.223.137: icmp_seq=2 ttl=49 time=85.332 ms
64 bytes from 208.102.223.137: icmp_seq=3 ttl=49 time=91.327 ms
traceroute to 208.102.223.137 (208.102.223.137), 64 hops max, 52 byte packets
7 pos-0-10-0-0-cr01.denver.co.ibone.comcast.net (68.86.86.22) 44.308 ms 36.699 ms 26.050 ms
8 pos-0-7-0-0-cr01.dallas.tx.ibone.comcast.net (68.86.86.210) 72.804 ms 70.635 ms 86.250 ms
9 pos-0-1-0-0-pe01.1950stemmons.tx.ibone.comcast.net (68.86.86.94) 85.642 ms 80.102 ms 83.993 ms
10 sl-st31-dal-0-5-2-0.sprintlink.net (144.232.25.33) 75.552 ms 85.975 ms 69.215 ms
11 sl-crs2-fw-0-6-3-0.sprintlink.net (144.232.19.179) 91.875 ms
sl-crs1-fw-0-6-5-0.sprintlink.net (144.232.19.59) 74.784 ms
sl-crs3-fw-0-0-2-0.sprintlink.net (144.232.18.73) 96.481 ms
12 sl-crs2-atl-0-8-0-0.sprintlink.net (144.232.18.148) 166.932 ms
sl-crs1-atl-0-8-0-0.sprintlink.net (144.232.18.146) 143.757 ms
sl-crs2-fw-0-7-0-0.sprintlink.net (144.232.1.46) 72.344 ms
13 sl-crs1-atl-0-6-0-0.sprintlink.net (144.232.8.20) 167.941 ms 109.164 ms
sl-crs2-atl-0-8-0-0.sprintlink.net (144.232.18.148) 116.084 ms
14 sl-crs1-dc-0-4-0-1.sprintlink.net (144.232.8.147) 110.353 ms
sl-st31-ash-0-2-0-0.sprintlink.net (144.232.25.15) 111.318 ms
sl-crs2-dc-0-4-0-1.sprintlink.net (144.232.8.161) 151.998 ms
15 sl-cinci3-362168-0.sprintlink.net (144.228.205.54) 110.992 ms 104.999 ms 111.631 ms
16 10ge0-2-0-0.core2.core.fuse.net (216.68.7.199) 133.034 ms
sl-cinci3-362168-0.sprintlink.net (144.228.205.54) 122.794 ms
10ge0-2-0-0.core2.core.fuse.net (216.68.7.199) 136.687 ms
17 10ge1-2.sw2.core.fuse.net (216.68.7.198) 80.569 ms
10ge0-2-0-0.core2.core.fuse.net (216.68.7.199) 136.431 ms 164.560 ms
18 10ge1-2.sw2.core.fuse.net (216.68.7.198) 76.720 ms
10ge2-2.ws-osr2.zoomtown.com (216.68.7.205) 101.821 ms
10ge1-2.sw2.core.fuse.net (216.68.7.198) 78.362 ms
19 mw-esr1-72-49-32-1.fuse.net (72.49.32.1) 77.202 ms 95.935 ms 87.240 ms
20 * mw-esr1-72-49-32-1.fuse.net (72.49.32.1) 82.678 ms 80.115 ms
21 * * *
22 * * *
23 * * *
24 * * *
208.102.223.137 isn't responding on port 21 (ftp).
208.102.223.137 isn't responding on port 23 (telnet).
208.102.223.137 isn't responding on port 25 (smtp).
208.102.223.137 isn't responding on port 80 (http).
208.102.223.137 isn't responding on port 110 (pop3).
208.102.223.137 isn't responding on port 139 (netbios-ssn).
208.102.223.137 isn't responding on port 445 (microsoft-ds).
208.102.223.137 isn't responding on port 1433 (ms-sql-s).
208.102.223.137 isn't responding on port 1521 (ncube-lm).
208.102.223.137 isn't responding on port 1723 (pptp).
208.102.223.137 isn't responding on port 3306 (mysql).
208.102.223.137 isn't responding on port 3389 (ms-wbt-server).
208.102.223.137 isn't responding on port 5900 ().
208.102.223.137 isn't responding on port 8080 (webcache).