Continuing from where I missed an html escape...
Cam I got was Less Than ( < ) $100 US and has an enclosure to use underwater. At only 1.3Mp, its not the highest res, but the pics still look good. Aside from 8M built it, it also uses the same memory as my Olympus (SmartMedia) but has a differnt formatting system, at least I had extra cards around. Back to the point, it can record pics, video, video with sound, and just sound. Works good underwater too! Took it to 87' on a dive in Destin Fl, and after I got the bubbles out from under the buttons it worked great, no leaks.
Just invest in a nice digital camera. Alot of the newer ones have voice recording capability with a built in microphone. Since you will most likely be traveling with a camera of some kind, and seeing as you are posting on/. its probably going to be a digital one anyway. Not only will you be able to take notes, you will be able to take a pic at the same time, and then describe it to yourself in your own voice. The files it saves will be time stamped as well to help keep it all organized.
The camera I most recenly purchased wasnt even that expensive (Tm
Take a transformer (no, the electrical kind, not the shape changing robot kind) thats got different primary and secondary windings, and a 9v battery. In its simplest form, take the two wires from one coil and attach to battery while victem holds the others, then disconnect the wires. For a better effect, connect/disconnect very quickly. A friend and I had a bunch of fun making shock boxes (back in Jr High) with this, to the point where we had a metal cube about 3" per side with a mercury switch inside, and all sides of the cube isolated and on different ends of the coils. As long as you held it level and didnt shake it you were ok, soon as you handed it to someone, they probably would trigger the mercury switch and get shocked, causing them to drop it. Another box was cardboard with bare copper wires run underneath cloth athletic tape on the outside coonected to the transformer. It had one button on top that had "DO NOT PUSH THIS BUTTON!" written around it...
Is both a standard size and prizmatic (rectangular prism with a corner choped off). Not sure if the cells inside it are cylindrical like they are inside a 9v, but it wouldnt supprise me. Cells are round for several reasons. If you have noticed, the output of a battery/cell is at the axial ends of the cylinder. This is due to the cathode and anode being rods that go into the electrolyte and other components inside. With a round cell, all the material is equidistant from these rods. Round shapes also are the most efficient containers (diameter of a round shape will always be less than the maximum dimension of an angled shape, try circle vs. square, diameter is less than the corner-corner length), and make the best pressure-vessels. Lithium and other batteries are made with internal pressure that the shell of the battery has to contain. If the shape is rectangular, it would have a tendancy to deform into a round shape.
Slightly off the topic of the article, but anyway.... I know VoIP networks have this functionality built in along with other features activated when a modem/fax initiate tone is recieved, but iirc the tone itself is mainy the "hello?" or syn of the connection establishement between endpoints. If you ever notice, the tone on one side will repeat until the other side responds with a slightly different pitched tone before the two ends start negotiating speeds and protocols (the folloing sequences of tones and static). For fax connections, the calling fax will send out a beep every couple seconds that triggers the fax on the other end to stat talking. With VoIP, when the media gateways detect a fax or modem tone, the call is placed into a modempassthrough mode thats optimized for modem communications. This disables comfort-noise injection, and alters the echo-canceling on the line. I would assume the SS7 trunks of the PSTN/POTs networks use something similar.
Which was my point about destroying the original signal (ie: intercepting it completely without letting any of the original pass your interception point), and creating a completely new signal (repeating the data only while building a new encryption around it). By acting as the origin, if you intercept the signal in its entirety, and have the ability to perfectly masquerade as both ends (as far as identity and encryption methods are concerned) so the sender thinks it is still talking to the recipient, and recipient thinks its still talking to sender, you can create an independant transmission that will not show signs of tampering, since you are creating your own new transmission. You will not distort the signal, you will destroy the original and create a new one. If you can read the data, you can create a new transmission from it. If you block the original signal, the quantum encryption from the original source will validate to your interception point*, and your transmission will validate from you to the original target.
*This assumes the sending and recieving ends do not encrypt based on physical path length or other values solely dependant on physical location, which given the transmission method should be easy to do (calculate time of transmission between target and source, etc). If the encryption includes such values, and part of the encryption is done by the recieving end reflecting a portion of the signal (purely reflecting, not reading and re-sending) this would not work (given today's technology), as the sending time would not match, and an attempt to re-send the incoming signal with a delay would alter the quantum state as would attempting to create a delay with mirrors (reflecting alters the state itself). It would also only work in the perfect world where the interception point is in place from the begining, as any disturbance would notify both ends something is going on, your interception/resending device would have to be invisible and airborne and perfectly stationary, since this is line-of-site communications along a path the width of a narrow laserbeam, and you know all the possible keys and encryption methods in use. But as this is a somewhat theoretical discussion of this being an absolutely un-breachable form of communication....Im not saying interception of this is actually possible, just saying claiming something as 100%secure that is still in its infancy as this is, is shortsighted, and theoretically unfounded. Who knows, there could be new discoveries in the future to enable reading and sending perfect quantum replicas. Seeing as we can already teleport them, creating exact coppies shouldnt be much more difficult.
The deal with quantum transmission is you are sending the data as single photons (smallest divisible unit of light, like a molecule of a compound, or a single cell of a living thing). Meaning, if you read it, you absorb the message (recievers transform the optical signal, ie: photons of light, into electrical ones), or at least change it in some way. The only way to possibly intercept the transmission is to completely intercept it, keeping any form of it from reaching the true reciepient, knowing the protocol enough to keep the sender thinking it is sending to the original target (sending encrypted keys or something), or acting as a repeater while recording the values as they pass through. Since they are being broadcast, you would have to put your device directly in line-of-site between sender and target, something probably notacable. Keeping the sender and reciever unaware of a repeater would be difficult, as adding such a device would add a time delay to the transmission, something the encryption might be dependant on. As for transmission, you would have to have a repeater device along a long or complex span, something knowing the encryption method and is known to both sides of the span. It is easier to secure single points of transmission than entire cable or enven fiber cables, since you dont have to worry about people splicing into it without knowing about it. The only worry would be a DOS, somehow blocking the path of the transmission, something easily remidied with a large enough cannon.
Cold fusion (if proven to be such) is not something from nothing. There is energy put into the medium to create the effect/reaction, and currently there is debate as to whether more energy comes out than is being put it, same as the other HOT fusion reactors, except those are a bit easier to measure and the process is understood much better. If more comes out, it is not out of nowhere, it is from some reaction nuclear or chemical (depending on the resulting waste products) shedding energy, same as fission/fusion/coal burning. They all take some energy to get going, some more than others, but eventually produce more than what is put in. Think of how ridiculous it sounds to hold a bunch of metal pellets together and produce heat, are you getting something for nothing? Not if the metal happens to be uranium or plutonium. The heat is from the elements radioactive breakdown and the resulting particle's influence on the rest of the mass to accelerate the breakdown. It all goes back to Einstein's theory of e=mc^2, that theorizes all matter can be transformed directly to energy. Cold fusion is being studied to determine if this is the case with it as well.
Alright, I havent tried JOE that much, but the other one, JED, took me away from emacs forever. I cant stand editing and programming in vi, I know it enough to use it if its the only thing around, but its still too cryptic, and has a steep learning curve and no built in help (other than Invalid Command!). Granted, you wont need the help once you master every command an editor has to offer, but who really has time for that? If I should work on a project where a command I never used before would speed things up, with vi I would have to launch a manpage or browser and go look it up. JED, like emacs has apropose (not sure about JOE). Having started under emacs, JED's default emacs mode made me feel at home (it has a Wordstar mode too if you prefer), and if your terminal supports color, you get your syntax highlighting (and its been there for a while, ie: not a new feature). Add to that the different language packs (that auto-load by file extension or #! line) for different programming languages to auto-indent, check basic formatting rules (checks parenths/brackets/; etc) and change the syntax coloring rules, and it has multi-level undo! Add in the interactive replace_cmd and most of emacs' useful functions. I tried it when I was tired of emacs bloat, vi's err vi-ness, ed's uselessnes, and started trying the other varients installed from my slack distro. Joe was a step up deffinately, but to me Jed was better.
Tm
Re:Anyone have a replica of MS-DOS EDITOR?
on
JOE Hits 3.0
·
· Score: 2, Informative
If you have any emacs experience, JED is very similar. Ctrl-@ hightlight your block, ctl-k to kill, ctl-y to yank it back in wherever. Or, ctl-x x [0-9]+ to insert into a buffer by number, then ctl-x g [0-9]+ to bring it back. I also love the replace command (esc-x replace_cmd), as it runs in interactive mode by default, can replace everything, only what you tell it, or nothing at all, and shows you each item before changing it. The multiple level undo rocks too (ctl-_). Oh, and when doing debugs, ctl-[ g is indespensable, letting you jump to a line by its number (given from debug/crash output), and if you're ever stuck, ctl-g will cancel, ctl-x c will exit.
Last I heard, we were in the middle of the information age. The Space Age started back when Sputnik was launched and ran through the 70s when the cold war was pushing the race to the moon etc... The information age then took over with microprocessor developement in the 70's, TCP/IP and fiber optics.
a self contained raid unit... setup each individual unit with several of these drives running hardware raid5 on a controller that interfaced as a SCSI device, so it itself could be part of a larger hardware RAID. If a drive in the unit goes bad, that unit could be removed from the larger raid array so the individual disk could be replaced without taking the raid down (kinda like raid5 is now). This would add another layer of failover, as each unit would have its own redundancy against failure (the unit would still work even if a single drive went out), and could signal a warning via LED or something when it detected a problem, while still functioning as a healthy drive inside the larger raid. If more than one disk died in the same unit, the unit would be labeled bad by the larger array, but the redundancy of that array would keep the whole array up.... Its something I know is already used, though implemented differently (raid0-5, mirrored raid 5, two storage arrays, mirrors of each other, each running raid5), this would just be a more granular solution that due to its size, could possibly plug directly into existing raid cabinets (think, a few of these drives and the controller should easily fit into a 3.5" drive bay as a single unit).
NAT is only an issue if you do not own/control the thing doing NAT. If you can control the NAT device, you can set the ports required for whatever service to be forwarded to an internal device. If you have more than one device internal that needs said service, then you should get more IP's and not use NAT. Alot of Apps are now written to take NAT into account (ie: all Instant messengers), and by using a central server to initiate an outbound connection, can allow many of the same App to work with only one public IP address. As this relates to VoIP, it depends entirely on the implementation, but 99% of the time is no issue what so ever.
The issue of NAT becomes null when the terminating VoIP device on the customer's end is the gateway router that de-VoIPify's the voice traffic back to POTS lines or CAS/PRI(ISDN) style digital trunks(look up Cisco IAD 2430), while taking care of the LAN's NAT and other data traffic as well. Granted this one is aimed more at companies that have multiple internal lines connected to a PBX, but is also the model being implemented by several other providers as well with smaller routers and DSL. It also proves VoIP is not limited to the assumed stereotype of Vonage style VoInternet for a single line. One of the advantages of VoIP is that you do not need 1 IP address per Line/TN. The routing is done by IP, meaning 1 or 100000 TN's can be mapped to terminate at any single IP address. The only time NAT would be an issue at all is if you are trying to implement VoInternet and your ISP gives you only a NAT'd IP address. If you want to use multiple VoIP phones at a location where the LAN sits behind a NAT box, you route all VoIP traffic to a VoIP gateway/PBX from that NAT box, then from the VoIP Gateway/PBX you route the calls internally based on whatever you want, thats what PBX's are specifically for.
Your post also makes the mistake that it seems the whole/. crowd has made toward VoIP, in assuming VoIP==VoINTERNET. There are CLECs out there already using 100% VoIP comunications, on their own internal networks. The difference is the CLEC becomes both your Telco provider and ISP while providing security and reliability (voice traffic does not leave the CLEC network to travel the "wild" internet, and therefore cannot be sniffed/comprimised without first comprimising the LECs internal network). As an employee of such a company, I have first hand knowledge of how it works. Voice traffic is routed completely seperate from data, and on a "private" IP subnet that wont route out of the LECs cloud.
Its not just the outer radius, its the inner radius as well. One might think that over the years the case design might change to allow different sized platters (slightly larger with smaller drive axle for more surface area maybe), but if you stack up a bunch of platters from all different manufacturers over the last 10 years or so they match up almost perfectly, outside and inside. And as I said, the only noticable difference is color and thickness (and therefore weight as well). Goes to show where the research $$ is. Manufacturers have a design that works well for the case, platter assembly and drive mechanism, so they concentrate on increasing the storage density of the platters and accuracy of the heads (the design of the arms, heads and actuators has changed drasticly over the same time period).
though drives typically contain substantially more platters
Maybe in the old full-height drives, but most consumer 3.5" drives nowdays only have 1-3 platters (as have most drives I have disassembled....my platter collection is at about 50), 4 in the ultra-top-of-the-line high-capacity drives. Each platter is about 1mm thick, but has space between the rest of the chassi and other platters for the head assymblies (which is 2 assymblies between platters, one for each). These take up more room, as the arm's design itself is usually thicker than the platter, and it has to be rasied off the platter so that it will not damage it as it swings back and forth rapidly. You also have to add in the case itself and the motor used to spin the platters. Theres not much room to cram in too many platters inside the case. Remeber the dimensions of a half-height 3.5" drive gives only about 1.6" of vertical space total.
You are correct though, in that lower capacity drives just remove platters and head assymblies from a higher capacity model. Specifically, I took apart two older Seagate drives, one had 1 platter, the other had 2 and was rated at almost double capacity, but where otherwise identical. In place of the platters, they just put in spacers on the drive axel.
Tm
ps: on a side note its interesting to see how the design of drives have changed over the years, from heads actuated by stepping motors to voice-coil actuators, and from the full-height monsters with 7 platters to single platter drives with 10x capacity, yet the platters have stayed the exact same radial size on every 3.5" drive I have taken apart. The only notable physical differnece other than color is the thickness. Newer platters are lighter in color and are ALOT thinner.
This just in, new tool for ID Theft just released!
on
The Universal Card
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
To me this just screams Identity theft. All a clerk has to do is have one of these in their pockets and swipe customer's cards to get a copy of it. No more need to cash it out on the spot (as with carrying around a second whole credit card scanner), they can use it anywhere they want, and have it report their name on the peice of plastic. And by capturing rfid tags? Doesnt that beat the "security" Speedpass and others like it are supposed to have built in? This thing doesnt seem to check whos card its scanning in, just asks for a finger print. This is essentially a credit-card coppier thats pocket sized. Sure its a little secure against itself being stolen and used by ID theifs, but what about ID thiefs using it against other consumers?
No, water, same as most any liquid, is not compressable. What it DOES do that brake fluid does not, is boil at a relatively low temp. The friction from the pads against the disc/drum heats up all your brake components, disc/drum/pads/calipers/fluid/etc. Once heated, the water would boil, creating steam pockets in your brakeline, and steam (a gas) is VERY compressable.
Just realize the parent is flamebait and move along, nothing to see here.
Highlight it and click thesaurus, and it spits out something silly... The older version's reply (pre-office2k) was better than Office 2K's, which includes
it's no trouble
I think this whole thing is just an error in their search logic, similar to the way this thesaurus trick works... although it is strange that only xfree86 has issues, and not xfree85 or any other permutation of it.
Must bring up something I always though interesting in reading Larry Niven's work. His idea for futuristic space-suits was what he termed Skin suit, basically a full-body suit that was ultra thin, made of radiation blocking material that would let sweat though, and would keep the body pressurized by its compressiveness (think of spandex, modernized a bit and radiation proof). the suit of course had a helmet about the same as current ones, big glass bubble..
The original post was intended to mean upgrading the OS while trying to keep your apps sane, though I see now how that can be taken to include the bugfixes as well. In reality, MS bugfixes and patches are relatively stable, and generally fix stuff more than they break, but to claim they do not break stuff is ignorant. If they didnt, there would be no need to test run the fix before deployment, as any real IT department would. MS has a track record of deploying many fixes that broke things, badly. Pick a service pack, read the troubleshooting section on MS's page for it, and doubtless there are several "known issues" relating to software/drivers that becomes broken from installing the SP.
is the key, not OS upgrade which is what MS requires. There is a big difference. In linux, you upgrade the kernel without (normally, unless you jump major releases, ie: 2.4.x->2.6.x)having to upgrade every peice of software...just recompile and reboot. In MS's OS products, you either apply a servicepack (which might update its kernel), patch, hotfix, or other bugfix; or upgrade by buying a whole new OS that replaces all the main OS software, and pray the upgrade doesnt f*ck your already installed stuff (good luck with the registry) if its even compatible (NT/2k/XP from 98/95 anyone?). This is what that quote is reffering to, and what they expect you to do, buy the latest gratest buggiest OS they have to offer, to keep yourself secure, or dont complain to them when a bug comes out that exploits a "non-existant" vulnerability (since it cant exist until they have a patch, and since they arent patching your OS anymore, there must be no more vulnerabilities). Add to that that MS tends to End Of Life software after only a few years, where as the 2.0.x,2.2.x and 2.4.x kernel trees are still actively maintained even tho they have been around a while. So rather than an "upgrade" per Microsloth, keeping Linux "up to date" with kernel upgrades is more like their servicepacks/bugfixes (how many reboots when using Windows AutoUpdate??).
Why not just buy a DVD changer then? Sony's had them out for several years now, in the 400+ disc capacity (see Sony DVP-CX985V). The original poster is asking for a way to do this the hard way. The advantage being the movies can be watched in other locations via a lan, even at the same time other movies are playing. The disadvantages being, getting and setting up the system for this sort of stuff, config'ing it, ripping the discs into it, getting the interface working, keeping it running, buying more storage for additional movies etc. If you plan on only using the DVD's in one place, get a few of the dvd changers (3 would cover the 1000+ dvd's) as they normally will work like that (I know the sony ones have a/b/c switches on them specifically for this). Daisy chain them with the slink control cable and you should be able to get all your movies accessable. I leave it to you to figure the audio and video hookups tho...
Slashdot Mirror
TM
The camera I most recenly purchased wasnt even that expensive (Tm
Tm
Tm
tm
*This assumes the sending and recieving ends do not encrypt based on physical path length or other values solely dependant on physical location, which given the transmission method should be easy to do (calculate time of transmission between target and source, etc). If the encryption includes such values, and part of the encryption is done by the recieving end reflecting a portion of the signal (purely reflecting, not reading and re-sending) this would not work (given today's technology), as the sending time would not match, and an attempt to re-send the incoming signal with a delay would alter the quantum state as would attempting to create a delay with mirrors (reflecting alters the state itself). It would also only work in the perfect world where the interception point is in place from the begining, as any disturbance would notify both ends something is going on, your interception/resending device would have to be invisible and airborne and perfectly stationary, since this is line-of-site communications along a path the width of a narrow laserbeam, and you know all the possible keys and encryption methods in use. But as this is a somewhat theoretical discussion of this being an absolutely un-breachable form of communication....Im not saying interception of this is actually possible, just saying claiming something as 100%secure that is still in its infancy as this is, is shortsighted, and theoretically unfounded. Who knows, there could be new discoveries in the future to enable reading and sending perfect quantum replicas. Seeing as we can already teleport them, creating exact coppies shouldnt be much more difficult.
TM
tm
TM
Tm
tm
Tm
Tm
Just a thought..
Tm
Info..
Tm
The issue of NAT becomes null when the terminating VoIP device on the customer's end is the gateway router that de-VoIPify's the voice traffic back to POTS lines or CAS/PRI(ISDN) style digital trunks(look up Cisco IAD 2430), while taking care of the LAN's NAT and other data traffic as well. Granted this one is aimed more at companies that have multiple internal lines connected to a PBX, but is also the model being implemented by several other providers as well with smaller routers and DSL. It also proves VoIP is not limited to the assumed stereotype of Vonage style VoInternet for a single line. One of the advantages of VoIP is that you do not need 1 IP address per Line/TN. The routing is done by IP, meaning 1 or 100000 TN's can be mapped to terminate at any single IP address. The only time NAT would be an issue at all is if you are trying to implement VoInternet and your ISP gives you only a NAT'd IP address. If you want to use multiple VoIP phones at a location where the LAN sits behind a NAT box, you route all VoIP traffic to a VoIP gateway/PBX from that NAT box, then from the VoIP Gateway/PBX you route the calls internally based on whatever you want, thats what PBX's are specifically for.
Your post also makes the mistake that it seems the whole /. crowd has made toward VoIP, in assuming VoIP==VoINTERNET. There are CLECs out there already using 100% VoIP comunications, on their own internal networks. The difference is the CLEC becomes both your Telco provider and ISP while providing security and reliability (voice traffic does not leave the CLEC network to travel the "wild" internet, and therefore cannot be sniffed/comprimised without first comprimising the LECs internal network). As an employee of such a company, I have first hand knowledge of how it works. Voice traffic is routed completely seperate from data, and on a "private" IP subnet that wont route out of the LECs cloud.
Tm
Tm
Maybe in the old full-height drives, but most consumer 3.5" drives nowdays only have 1-3 platters (as have most drives I have disassembled....my platter collection is at about 50), 4 in the ultra-top-of-the-line high-capacity drives. Each platter is about 1mm thick, but has space between the rest of the chassi and other platters for the head assymblies (which is 2 assymblies between platters, one for each). These take up more room, as the arm's design itself is usually thicker than the platter, and it has to be rasied off the platter so that it will not damage it as it swings back and forth rapidly. You also have to add in the case itself and the motor used to spin the platters. Theres not much room to cram in too many platters inside the case. Remeber the dimensions of a half-height 3.5" drive gives only about 1.6" of vertical space total.
You are correct though, in that lower capacity drives just remove platters and head assymblies from a higher capacity model. Specifically, I took apart two older Seagate drives, one had 1 platter, the other had 2 and was rated at almost double capacity, but where otherwise identical. In place of the platters, they just put in spacers on the drive axel.
Tm
ps: on a side note its interesting to see how the design of drives have changed over the years, from heads actuated by stepping motors to voice-coil actuators, and from the full-height monsters with 7 platters to single platter drives with 10x capacity, yet the platters have stayed the exact same radial size on every 3.5" drive I have taken apart. The only notable physical differnece other than color is the thickness. Newer platters are lighter in color and are ALOT thinner.
Tm
Ill Drink to that
Tm
Just realize the parent is flamebait and move along, nothing to see here.
Tm
I would like to see Bill Gates Dead
Highlight it and click thesaurus, and it spits out something silly... The older version's reply (pre-office2k) was better than Office 2K's, which includes
it's no trouble
I think this whole thing is just an error in their search logic, similar to the way this thesaurus trick works... although it is strange that only xfree86 has issues, and not xfree85 or any other permutation of it.
Tm
Tm
Tm
Tm
Tm