I didn't make it to one, but I wonder how many additions to "friends" there will be.
-- Please insert 1 mg caffeine for the next 5 minutes.
Re:Upgradability goes further than just the mobo
on
Shuttle SS51 Reviewed
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
This is why this computer isn't for everyone. When you buy small, integrated systems, you instantly sacrifice some level of upgrades and expansion for the small box.
But wouldn't it be sweet if your friend brought over his PS2/Gamecube, you set two TVs next to each other, and you at seven friends all play the same game together?
As a side note, A FireWire Ethernet Transceiver already exists (preliminary documentation). If you were that interested in a Portable SAMBA server, you could get an iPod.;)
nVidia's new nForce2 chipset has USB 2.0 and FireWire support. I have seen firewire on the front panel of some Compaqs (a little while ago). It is available on Dells. I can't speak for anything else, as I don't regularly go computer shopping. The latest in MicroATX computers (Shuttle) have FireWire onboard.
Sure, USB 2.0 is a bit faster. But it incurs more host overhead (especially communicating between two devices) and doesn't offer as much power.
USB 2.0 would be great if FireWire didn't already exists. It is not needed, and the decision between USB 2.0 and FireWire hurts people's ability to purchase new devices.
USB 1.1 is fine for what it is: high speed serial ports. Keyboards, mice, tablets, floppy drives, low-end webcams, some scanners... It doesn't need to be more than that. FireWire is physically as easy, and is a more versatile technology.
Most PCs don't have USB 2.0 yet. FireWire is becoming more available. DEll now offers a video editing studio with FireWire card for $50. It is already being used in a number of peripherals (many USB 2.0 devices also have FireWire interfaces).
FireWire also allows devices to communicate directly, reducing system overhead.
It also allows more power than the USB specification.
I understand your desire to have aa portable whatever-you-want, but sometimes you should accept that a device isn't designed/meant to be used in this fashion.
The screen isn't large enough for output not specifically formatted for it. The buttons aren't sufficient for inputting data, unless you want to scroll through the alphabet console-game style. Sure, it can be done, but is it worth it?
My iPod is a FireWire hard drive. It doesn't plug into a network, but you'd need a computer to make it worth anything as a network storage device. If you plug the drive into a computer, the computer can be the samba server much more easily.
Sure, you could play more types of audio formats, but what are you going to listen to? MIDIs? VQFs? OGG, I suppose. There are formats that you could listen to, but is it currently worth it? And, notably, Linux doesn't support any audio format "natively".
I'm not completely familiar with the USB standard, but I don't think you could get the device to talk properly to another peripheral. One big part of USB (not a FireWire limitation) is that peripherals must communicate through the host computer, and not directly.
I don't deny the work people put forth to install Linux on everything isn't amazing, and a testament to the perserverance and ingenuity of people, but, as with case mods, there's a "gee, look what I did" period, and then it's gone, becuase the functoin isn't worth the hassle.
Fiber may run into every room, but it would seem (to me, anyway) that the "last foot" solution will be a tranceiver and a Cat5 cable into the back of a computer. Some people may choose to install fiber cards, but many people won't feel comfortable enough to have someone play around inside their system.
Sorry to be off-topic, but I think you missed something.
The ability to share a playlist does not MP3-swapping make. You can send someone else a list of songs and it will find them on the other person's computer.
Also, you've obviously never used an iPod. Apple set it up so iTunes allows you to copy music to the iPod, not from it. Sure, you can use it as a portable hard drive, but condemming the iPod as against the DMCA for that is like saying Sharpie's should be illegal becauce they can defeat CD copy protection. Let's ban all forms of transportable media while we're at it.
The iPod's protection can be broken with various bits of software, but again, condemning the iPod for this would be like condemning makers of CDs because their copy protection can be broken.
Sorry to go off, but Apple is doing far more to keep music both accessible and legal than anyone else I've seen in some time. Even the "Rip. Mix. Burn." campaign was in keeping with that. You must have the CD to rip it. Apple isn't willing to go to the opressive extremes that Microsoft is with Palladium, but they are trying to keep people honest.
Maybe Apple just believes that people can be good, and Microsoft (and most everyone else) has forgetten that.
This would make quite the interesting playground for Massively Mutli-Player First Person Shooters (MMPFPS?) - of course your computer would need serious processing power...
Wouldn't you want to play Unreal Ultimate: up to 1000 players in maps up to 5 square miles (scale)?!
Of course, making the maps would be a huge undertaking...
Only internally. Some unhappy CS student could set up a massive DDoS on the prof's computer, but not outside. The only thing they would acheive in attempting DDos on an outside location would be to flood their router(s) and, just maybe, make a minor impact on the target server.
Music won't be shared non-lossy. Sure, the transfers rates may be up, but this didn't have the beneficial side effect of increasing hard drive space. Very few people would be willing to d/l WAVs of CDs instead of MP3s for the extra bit of quality due to the 12x (average for 128bit MP3) file size increase. For now, at least.
Same goes with movies. Right now, a high-quality DiVX run you.5+ gig, and while harddrive sizes are increasing, we have a ways to go before we do straight DVD rips.
And again, we still have limitations of the system itself. Sure, you can run 1Gbps fiber into a 533 Celeron. The typical personal computer can't push 1Gbps through the system, and certainly not through the drives.
Maybe someone will set up a beowulf/distributed.net hybrid, using the low-latency network to set up parallel computing on a dynamic basis (systems going on/offline). It would be interesting to see, and would be great proof-of-concept for autonomous computer projects, like IBM's SMASH (part of Blue Gene).
The "ring" could work much like a phone cord detangler - bars at extend each to a different ring. The other problems you have here:
Synchronization: Getting the laser at one spot on a CD is a complex process (so much so that a buffer underrun can cause a misalignment in a burnt CD, making coasters). If you spin the CD and the laser at different variable speeds, you would need some great hardware calculating that would be able to put the two speeds to gather as they vary.
Communication: Getting power is pretty easy, but what about returning data? You could use the same spinning wire-on-ring system, but I think it would limit the communications bandwidth.
I think a better system would be to have 2+ read heads on a CD-ROM. Two or four read heads could more quickly access data if they were fully independant. Drive access time could be halved, as could seek time. Two heads could "stripe" data, allowing the transfers to be even faster.
The speed of sound is about 1130 (depends on temp) feet/second. a 5.25-inch disc's outer edge would be spinning at around 1282 feet/second - in excess of the speed of sound. I'm not well versed of the physics of the equation, but it seems that the disc's outer edge, having broken the speed of sound, would be the recipient of some extreme air pressure and turbulence that would cause the edges to break, and the uneven weight distribution would do the rest.
Of course, I'm just taking a stab - could be wrong.
There will always be people willing to break the encryption no matter what the costs in time, and technology. If you wanted access to my Internet connection through my 802.11 (without physically breaking into my home), you could get it eventually. But I can make it difficult for you, and that is the point.
Encryption was never to prevent information from being intercepted. It was never to stop data from being read. It was to delay. It comes back to the simple question - how important is the security of your network/data?
So we should be using Application Layer encryption as well if security is that important.
You can set up your 128-bit WEP connection, and open an SSH connection over it, or connect to your important websites with 128-bit SSL. Sure, wireless is still easier to break into than a cat5 cable, but as a business you trade the possibility of someone internally with a packet sniffer and a vengeance for someone externally with a packet sniffer, a wireless connection, time, and a vengeance/paid purpose. For major corporations, this trade-off may not be worth it, but for Joe Q. BusinessOwner, the odds that they are A) likely to be attacked, and B) transmitting sensitive data over their wireless connections without any consideration for security are low.
As time marches on, security will become a greater concern, and these issues will be more publibly noticed. But I'm looking forward to public-access networks with a universal distributed authentication system (set up much like DNS) where our data will be encrypted at the physical, transport, and application layers, and we will authenticate with our home/work networks no matter where we are
You want wireless you're gonnna have to accept the freeloaders on your service.
I haven't played with any wireless base stations other than my AirPort, but I can limit MAC Addresses, as well. Sure, this doesn't work in an environment where many friends/clients will be accessing your network unexpectedly, but in a home/school where the number of new users is extremely limited or well-controlled, this can improve security quite substantially.
Sure, they can still sniff packets, and they can still break encryption, but it will be a sight harder for them to access your wired network/Internet connection.
Some good points about being away from everything:
At night, you don't here sirens, and gunfire, and cars, and "city noise". You hear crickets, and wind, and a few cars.
When you want a breath of fresh air, you can get it.
If you want to go camping or hiking, swimming or fishing, et cetera, you can. You don't have to spend a few thousand planning a getaway when you're almost there.
At night, you can drive to where there are no street lights, and see the Milky Way. You can count shooting stars - even without meteor showers.
You can visit big cities and experience all the good things they have to offer if you choose, without having to life with the bad things.
Of course, much of this depends on how far away from everything you are. And for those who want the best of both worlds - most times a large corporate development goes in, the surrounding areas become more metropolitan.
And:
I don't ACTUALLY want to go to Miami or San Diego. Some people don't enjoy large cities, while others do.
If you think Albany, NY is the sticks, you've never travelled the open expanses of the Mid-West or the woods of Maine. Check the National Atlas and look at population density.
There may not be as many places to go, but there's plenty to do.
But soon the jobs will be as easy to come by there.
I believe it is an issue of employee potential vs cost. People who live in sparsely-populated (or at least not heavily populated) areas are more likely to travel a short distance to work (the necessity of being nowhere, I know) and you don't have to deal with many of the costs of city-based business.
When Walt Disney bought land for Disneyland, it was an orange field in the middle of nowhere. Plenty of space to do whatever you want. So, if you are building a massive reseach hub, you can put in a campus with space for lakes and bike paths and trees, and whatever else you choose.
I have preferred Debian for years, even though I don't spend a whole lot on time in Linux these days. Apt-get makes upgrades/installations much easier.
I belive many of the benefits of Debian would transition it well to Joe Average level users, once the interface/windowing stumbling blocks are overcome.
Slashdot Mirror
I didn't make it to one, but I wonder how many additions to "friends" there will be.
--
Please insert 1 mg caffeine for the next 5 minutes.
This is why this computer isn't for everyone. When you buy small, integrated systems, you instantly sacrifice some level of upgrades and expansion for the small box.
Small, expandable, inexpensive. Pick two.
I wonder how much this contributed to KPNQwest's death?
Watch out, companies will start suing WorldCom for unfair/uncompetetive business practices.
Of course, if WorldCom had meant to hurt others, they wouldn't have spent billions on a network that didn't need to exist yet.
--
No, no, no. This is Left Hand. Right Hand is wholly-owned subsidiary of our parent company. I'm afraid we don't maintain close ties. Good day.
But wouldn't it be sweet if your friend brought over his PS2/Gamecube, you set two TVs next to each other, and you at seven friends all play the same game together?
I'll take Team Fortress for $200, Alex.
As a side note, A FireWire Ethernet Transceiver already exists (preliminary documentation). If you were that interested in a Portable SAMBA server, you could get an iPod. ;)
nVidia's new nForce2 chipset has USB 2.0 and FireWire support. I have seen firewire on the front panel of some Compaqs (a little while ago). It is available on Dells. I can't speak for anything else, as I don't regularly go computer shopping. The latest in MicroATX computers (Shuttle) have FireWire onboard.
Sure, USB 2.0 is a bit faster. But it incurs more host overhead (especially communicating between two devices) and doesn't offer as much power.
USB 2.0 would be great if FireWire didn't already exists. It is not needed, and the decision between USB 2.0 and FireWire hurts people's ability to purchase new devices.
USB 1.1 is fine for what it is: high speed serial ports. Keyboards, mice, tablets, floppy drives, low-end webcams, some scanners... It doesn't need to be more than that. FireWire is physically as easy, and is a more versatile technology.
Most PCs don't have USB 2.0 yet. FireWire is becoming more available. DEll now offers a video editing studio with FireWire card for $50. It is already being used in a number of peripherals (many USB 2.0 devices also have FireWire interfaces).
FireWire also allows devices to communicate directly, reducing system overhead.
It also allows more power than the USB specification.
--
Just my thoughts.
I understand your desire to have aa portable whatever-you-want, but sometimes you should accept that a device isn't designed/meant to be used in this fashion.
The screen isn't large enough for output not specifically formatted for it. The buttons aren't sufficient for inputting data, unless you want to scroll through the alphabet console-game style. Sure, it can be done, but is it worth it?
My iPod is a FireWire hard drive. It doesn't plug into a network, but you'd need a computer to make it worth anything as a network storage device. If you plug the drive into a computer, the computer can be the samba server much more easily.
Sure, you could play more types of audio formats, but what are you going to listen to? MIDIs? VQFs? OGG, I suppose. There are formats that you could listen to, but is it currently worth it? And, notably, Linux doesn't support any audio format "natively".
I'm not completely familiar with the USB standard, but I don't think you could get the device to talk properly to another peripheral. One big part of USB (not a FireWire limitation) is that peripherals must communicate through the host computer, and not directly.
I don't deny the work people put forth to install Linux on everything isn't amazing, and a testament to the perserverance and ingenuity of people, but, as with case mods, there's a "gee, look what I did" period, and then it's gone, becuase the functoin isn't worth the hassle.
I think it's set up so both heads access the same data, just whatever is using the read-only head can't modify anything.
Not sure if it would be best to have two separate computers access opposite sides, or have one use the drive as two parts. Probably the first.
--
You are the weakest link! BLEARGH!
Fiber may run into every room, but it would seem (to me, anyway) that the "last foot" solution will be a tranceiver and a Cat5 cable into the back of a computer. Some people may choose to install fiber cards, but many people won't feel comfortable enough to have someone play around inside their system.
Sorry to be off-topic, but I think you missed something.
The ability to share a playlist does not MP3-swapping make. You can send someone else a list of songs and it will find them on the other person's computer.
Also, you've obviously never used an iPod. Apple set it up so iTunes allows you to copy music to the iPod, not from it. Sure, you can use it as a portable hard drive, but condemming the iPod as against the DMCA for that is like saying Sharpie's should be illegal becauce they can defeat CD copy protection. Let's ban all forms of transportable media while we're at it.
The iPod's protection can be broken with various bits of software, but again, condemning the iPod for this would be like condemning makers of CDs because their copy protection can be broken.
Sorry to go off, but Apple is doing far more to keep music both accessible and legal than anyone else I've seen in some time. Even the "Rip. Mix. Burn." campaign was in keeping with that. You must have the CD to rip it. Apple isn't willing to go to the opressive extremes that Microsoft is with Palladium, but they are trying to keep people honest.
Maybe Apple just believes that people can be good, and Microsoft (and most everyone else) has forgetten that.
Perhaps there will be a huge video-conferenced/digitally-recorded class initiative!
Stream or download your lectures in full MPEG2 broadcast quality with stereo sound. Also available on DVD for a modest production fee.
This would make quite the interesting playground for Massively Mutli-Player First Person Shooters (MMPFPS?) - of course your computer would need serious processing power...
Wouldn't you want to play Unreal Ultimate: up to 1000 players in maps up to 5 square miles (scale)?!
Of course, making the maps would be a huge undertaking...
Only internally. Some unhappy CS student could set up a massive DDoS on the prof's computer, but not outside. The only thing they would acheive in attempting DDos on an outside location would be to flood their router(s) and, just maybe, make a minor impact on the target server.
It's actually a test to see how many people connect their computer to their dorm phone line and sell Internet access over the university system!!
And it's done by ALIENS!!! ALIENS!!!
Music won't be shared non-lossy. Sure, the transfers rates may be up, but this didn't have the beneficial side effect of increasing hard drive space. Very few people would be willing to d/l WAVs of CDs instead of MP3s for the extra bit of quality due to the 12x (average for 128bit MP3) file size increase. For now, at least.
Same goes with movies. Right now, a high-quality DiVX run you .5+ gig, and while harddrive sizes are increasing, we have a ways to go before we do straight DVD rips.
And again, we still have limitations of the system itself. Sure, you can run 1Gbps fiber into a 533 Celeron. The typical personal computer can't push 1Gbps through the system, and certainly not through the drives.
Maybe someone will set up a beowulf/distributed.net hybrid, using the low-latency network to set up parallel computing on a dynamic basis (systems going on/offline). It would be interesting to see, and would be great proof-of-concept for autonomous computer projects, like IBM's SMASH (part of Blue Gene).
Well, my .02$US at any rate
The "ring" could work much like a phone cord detangler - bars at extend each to a different ring. The other problems you have here:
Synchronization: Getting the laser at one spot on a CD is a complex process (so much so that a buffer underrun can cause a misalignment in a burnt CD, making coasters). If you spin the CD and the laser at different variable speeds, you would need some great hardware calculating that would be able to put the two speeds to gather as they vary.
Communication: Getting power is pretty easy, but what about returning data? You could use the same spinning wire-on-ring system, but I think it would limit the communications bandwidth.
I think a better system would be to have 2+ read heads on a CD-ROM. Two or four read heads could more quickly access data if they were fully independant. Drive access time could be halved, as could seek time. Two heads could "stripe" data, allowing the transfers to be even faster.
Well, I'll stop.
The speed of sound is about 1130 (depends on temp) feet/second. a 5.25-inch disc's outer edge would be spinning at around 1282 feet/second - in excess of the speed of sound. I'm not well versed of the physics of the equation, but it seems that the disc's outer edge, having broken the speed of sound, would be the recipient of some extreme air pressure and turbulence that would cause the edges to break, and the uneven weight distribution would do the rest.
Of course, I'm just taking a stab - could be wrong.
There will always be people willing to break the encryption no matter what the costs in time, and technology. If you wanted access to my Internet connection through my 802.11 (without physically breaking into my home), you could get it eventually. But I can make it difficult for you, and that is the point.
Encryption was never to prevent information from being intercepted. It was never to stop data from being read. It was to delay. It comes back to the simple question - how important is the security of your network/data?
So we should be using Application Layer encryption as well if security is that important.
You can set up your 128-bit WEP connection, and open an SSH connection over it, or connect to your important websites with 128-bit SSL. Sure, wireless is still easier to break into than a cat5 cable, but as a business you trade the possibility of someone internally with a packet sniffer and a vengeance for someone externally with a packet sniffer, a wireless connection, time, and a vengeance/paid purpose. For major corporations, this trade-off may not be worth it, but for Joe Q. BusinessOwner, the odds that they are A) likely to be attacked, and B) transmitting sensitive data over their wireless connections without any consideration for security are low.
As time marches on, security will become a greater concern, and these issues will be more publibly noticed. But I'm looking forward to public-access networks with a universal distributed authentication system (set up much like DNS) where our data will be encrypted at the physical, transport, and application layers, and we will authenticate with our home/work networks no matter where we are
I haven't played with any wireless base stations other than my AirPort, but I can limit MAC Addresses, as well. Sure, this doesn't work in an environment where many friends/clients will be accessing your network unexpectedly, but in a home/school where the number of new users is extremely limited or well-controlled, this can improve security quite substantially.
Sure, they can still sniff packets, and they can still break encryption, but it will be a sight harder for them to access your wired network/Internet connection.
Some good points about being away from everything:
- At night, you don't here sirens, and gunfire, and cars, and "city noise". You hear crickets, and wind, and a few cars.
- When you want a breath of fresh air, you can get it.
- If you want to go camping or hiking, swimming or fishing, et cetera, you can. You don't have to spend a few thousand planning a getaway when you're almost there.
- At night, you can drive to where there are no street lights, and see the Milky Way. You can count shooting stars - even without meteor showers.
- You can visit big cities and experience all the good things they have to offer if you choose, without having to life with the bad things.
Of course, much of this depends on how far away from everything you are. And for those who want the best of both worlds - most times a large corporate development goes in, the surrounding areas become more metropolitan.And:
Just thoughts.
But soon the jobs will be as easy to come by there.
I believe it is an issue of employee potential vs cost. People who live in sparsely-populated (or at least not heavily populated) areas are more likely to travel a short distance to work (the necessity of being nowhere, I know) and you don't have to deal with many of the costs of city-based business.
When Walt Disney bought land for Disneyland, it was an orange field in the middle of nowhere. Plenty of space to do whatever you want. So, if you are building a massive reseach hub, you can put in a campus with space for lakes and bike paths and trees, and whatever else you choose.
Try doing that in LA, NYC, DC, Austin, etc.
--
Dromi - They name everything.
Missed the Importance of Being Earnest tie-in, huh?
--
You only die twice, Mr. Bond.
I have preferred Debian for years, even though I don't spend a whole lot on time in Linux these days. Apt-get makes upgrades/installations much easier.
I belive many of the benefits of Debian would transition it well to Joe Average level users, once the interface/windowing stumbling blocks are overcome.