I still recall a Ren and Stimpy episode where Ren's got this happy helmet on that makes him nothing but happy and in the process drives himself nuts to break it. Can't help but think we're all heading there eventually. Nothing but happy helmets on our heads.
But cynicism I think keeps the world interesting and honest, let's not get rid of it completely, k guys?
A few tweaks to the IP Camera idea in order for this to work:
Like you mentioned, the price, but I imagine by baby monitor Wifi Device idea won't come in much cheaper than a web cam/chumby combo.
I still need to have something constantly listening on the other end such as your chumby which is bought separately and expensively, I suppose I could keep my computer powered up through the night too, though power supply noises might get annoying. I imagine an audio only type of chumby would come out cheaper though.
Like you mentioned too, the setup curve, I suppose we can do dedicated devices that form their own WiFi hotspot though, than just reduce to plug and play (hopefully).
Sarcasm aside:-p I more realistically forsee a banning of baby monitors actually happening as the 2.4ghz airspace continues to clutter, either that or baby monitors actually joining WiFi spots as I said in an earlier post below, though what did they do in the days before baby monitors? Even when my baby monitor has a failure (forgot to turn on, unplugged, dead battery, etc.), I can usually still hear my baby screaming me awake, I keep telling my wife we really don't need the monitor just to amplify the volume of said scream...
I've somehow been able to run Wi-Fi with a baby monitor at home in the same general vicinity without a problem. I'm in a fairly dense suburban apartment complex with at least 10-12 WiFi hotspots when I look, it stands to reason other similar baby monitor devices, cordless cellphones, etc. are probably around. I also have a cordless landline phone, but it's on 5.8ghz and annoying everything but my WiFi there:-)
If this becomes a problem, I imagine they'll make baby monitors actually run on Wifi. Imagine your baby monitor being an internet device even if it's only relaying packets back and forth through your hub with nothing special. Maybe as a side benefit you can capture baby audio noises to Wifi network as MP3 or something for posterity, with a noise detector to catch anything significant (I envision emailing grandma 12am baby babble heard through the monitor).
As we all know the Wall Street Journal has been succesful in charging for content, heck even I have a subscription there.
The real trick there would be if they can pull together unique and novel content, and not just another AP feed in order to get a good online newspapaer. If WSJ can do it, there is plenty of reason to believe others can too.
Frankly I see a lot of newspapers doing this in the future. My hometown paper, the Loveland Reporter Herald is a good candidate for this. They do fairly decent local journalism and editorial IMO in their paper newspaper and the online paper is free. I one day forsee the print edition stopping and me paying aroudn $50/year for the online content instead (which I would pay).
Well a badly configured server in any platform gets hacked, I'm not necessarily blaming Microsoft in particular, let's let the facts come forward; but this is Slashdot, and no I'm not new here:-)
Seriously a high value server such as that really should have been behind a proxy like ISA Server to the Internet, oooh if I only could have configured their server...
1) Michelangelo
Back in the MS-DOS days this virus caused a scare at my workplace, on Michelangelo's birthday we were given directive to shut down our computers...my first experience with Virus hype...
2) Good Times Virus
Well ok not a virus, but I remember having to explain to my dad what a Virus hoax was for hours...ugggh...
No, they're less secure in the fact that I can sit there and sniff wireless packets all day without joining the network or even advertise that I'm out there, sure they're encrypted but unlike wired where I physically have to tap into a jack, wireless just needs to be in proximity. Something far easier to do.
The best enryption techniques for wireless have proven to be unbreakable so far, but you're a smidge more vulnerable when I can listen, as opposed to when I can't listen. I can't attempt to decrypt a packet that isn't there...
Think about it, most people tend to build large when building their networks to start. Or "Let's see we have a 4 port router for $x or an 8 port router for $x + $50, why don't we just buy the 8 port router and not have to come back later for another one as my network has only been growing?" I don't think WiFi changed this to any large extend as WiFi really has only liberated the laptops which never used many network jacks in the pre-wifi days to begin with...
In conclusion I don't think that the advent of WiFi has anything to do with the loss of Network Jacks. If the jacks are looking emptier than before I'd think along the lines of:
You can do more with fewer servers these days, fewer network plugs in new organizations due to fewer servers
Employees tend to work at home more often now, eliminating the need for as many workstations
Your Employees may tend to have laptops, which even in the pre wifi Days weren't plugged in much to the network anyways (Modems or Floppy disks were the norm)
And besides, who really cares how many jacks are open in your network....maybe you can disconnect a router or 2 and consolidate, save a watt or 2 of power at best.
Wireless has it's pros, I have 3 laptops at home so all I use is 802.11n. But I can think of many reasons Ethernet will prevail.
Speed, I have yet to see wireless reliably hit 100mbps in any configuration. Sure some of the standards out there quote that speed but they must be in a clean room with no other radio interference or walls between them or their access point. Let's just forget about 1gbps+ speeds for now with Wireless
Security, even with the best security wireless has to offer, you're just a smidge more vulnerable than with Wired access. It may not be that much, but I've done work with the U.S. Millitary and I never recall seeing a WAP at a sensitive location...
Reliability, less noise on a wired line than a wireless connection, any time someone uses the wrong wireless phone and zap, your connection is zero....try that with a wire. For the love of god don't even think of putting a server on wireless...
That's what I've got now and I'm sure more is coming...
Fair enough, but if our pirate gets in close, I tend to think Rate of fire is now more important than what we're firing, if your pirate is 50 yards off would you still want that M82? What would you change to if he managed to board somehow?
I was thinking about 50 cal, but I thought a M240 could keep an AK-47 out of range pretty well and could lay more metal on their deck faster than the 50 cal. My purpose being is to rake their deck with metal as quickly as possible before the pirates open fire.
Then again most 50 cal's can certainly lay plenty of metal on a pirate skiff fairly efficiently, we're not talking a large boat here, heck if the skiff doesn't have much metal in him, likely you'll poke holes in the hull with the 50 cal and he'll sink, the M240 may not necessarily penetrate...
How about if we enter the gulf of Aden together we compromise? We take one of each, and if we get the pirate further out, the 50 cal can take him down. If he gets in close (sneak attack or he's already on board somehow) the M240 opens up...
Well, pirates do have RPG's and I'm told a CIWS can knock one down (can't substantiate though, might be wrong). Also the later CIWS variants can target surface vessels at close range. So if I absolutely, positively have to atomize a pirate skiff at close range, accept no substitutions:-)
I'm not going out there to the Gulf of Aden unless I got one of these at a minimum, preferably something more long the lines of this. An M16 isn't bad though but I might need more oomph....
BTW: Jonesday, if you're thinking of suing me don't bother, I've got no money and know plenty of lawyers who will work for me anyways. It's not so much blood from a stone as it's blood from a raging inferno.
Typically once an insurance claim is paid, you assign ownership of the destroyed property to the insurance company. At least that's what I remember from the 2 auto accident claims I had where the insurance company became owners of the wreck that I had made. So figure once he cashed the check, the cigars, or whatever was left of them, or the rights to the destroyed ones were given to the insurance company, hence arson since he burned them intentionally.
Slashdot Mirror
I still recall a Ren and Stimpy episode where Ren's got this happy helmet on that makes him nothing but happy and in the process drives himself nuts to break it. Can't help but think we're all heading there eventually. Nothing but happy helmets on our heads.
But cynicism I think keeps the world interesting and honest, let's not get rid of it completely, k guys?
*happy happy joy joy happy happy joy joy*
(Offtopic but WTH, I'm too lazy to email and have tons of Karma to burn)
Not sure how/why I foed you but the chuckle that comment got out of me bumps you up to friend, welcome to the tekiegreg's friends club :-)
That this will wind up in the actual release in some form or another by mistake...it's only so easy to track zillions of lines of code after all.
A few tweaks to the IP Camera idea in order for this to work:
(this was my post) Hey Slashdot, can we make it so the AC checkbox isn't so easy to accidentally click?
Sarcasm aside :-p I more realistically forsee a banning of baby monitors actually happening as the 2.4ghz airspace continues to clutter, either that or baby monitors actually joining WiFi spots as I said in an earlier post below, though what did they do in the days before baby monitors? Even when my baby monitor has a failure (forgot to turn on, unplugged, dead battery, etc.), I can usually still hear my baby screaming me awake, I keep telling my wife we really don't need the monitor just to amplify the volume of said scream...
I've somehow been able to run Wi-Fi with a baby monitor at home in the same general vicinity without a problem. I'm in a fairly dense suburban apartment complex with at least 10-12 WiFi hotspots when I look, it stands to reason other similar baby monitor devices, cordless cellphones, etc. are probably around. I also have a cordless landline phone, but it's on 5.8ghz and annoying everything but my WiFi there :-)
If this becomes a problem, I imagine they'll make baby monitors actually run on Wifi. Imagine your baby monitor being an internet device even if it's only relaying packets back and forth through your hub with nothing special. Maybe as a side benefit you can capture baby audio noises to Wifi network as MP3 or something for posterity, with a noise detector to catch anything significant (I envision emailing grandma 12am baby babble heard through the monitor).
As we all know the Wall Street Journal has been succesful in charging for content, heck even I have a subscription there.
The real trick there would be if they can pull together unique and novel content, and not just another AP feed in order to get a good online newspapaer. If WSJ can do it, there is plenty of reason to believe others can too.
Frankly I see a lot of newspapers doing this in the future. My hometown paper, the Loveland Reporter Herald is a good candidate for this. They do fairly decent local journalism and editorial IMO in their paper newspaper and the online paper is free. I one day forsee the print edition stopping and me paying aroudn $50/year for the online content instead (which I would pay).
But these are my opinions, YMMV.
If this guy is anything approaching a professional it'll probably go back to an anonymous proxy :-/
Well a badly configured server in any platform gets hacked, I'm not necessarily blaming Microsoft in particular, let's let the facts come forward; but this is Slashdot, and no I'm not new here :-)
Seriously a high value server such as that really should have been behind a proxy like ISA Server to the Internet, oooh if I only could have configured their server...
aaaarrrgghh I hate you, but you're so right, I might need to change my sig now, nominations?
Dear whatever no name company I've never heard of, heed my piece of advice:
Be careful how you meddle in the affairs of extraterrestrial races you don't understand well, for your brain is highly assimilatable.
Sincerely:
Greg of Microsoft Borg, Drone in Unimatrix 22 subjunction 12
To the Pentagon's desire for large toys, or, "Just Think of how Many F-22's you could've had if you saved that cash, every single one you asked for!"
Oh well...
In the abscense of #1 and #2 I'll nominate some:
1) Michelangelo
Back in the MS-DOS days this virus caused a scare at my workplace, on Michelangelo's birthday we were given directive to shut down our computers...my first experience with Virus hype...
2) Good Times Virus
Well ok not a virus, but I remember having to explain to my dad what a Virus hoax was for hours...ugggh...
No, they're less secure in the fact that I can sit there and sniff wireless packets all day without joining the network or even advertise that I'm out there, sure they're encrypted but unlike wired where I physically have to tap into a jack, wireless just needs to be in proximity. Something far easier to do.
The best enryption techniques for wireless have proven to be unbreakable so far, but you're a smidge more vulnerable when I can listen, as opposed to when I can't listen. I can't attempt to decrypt a packet that isn't there...
Think about it, most people tend to build large when building their networks to start. Or "Let's see we have a 4 port router for $x or an 8 port router for $x + $50, why don't we just buy the 8 port router and not have to come back later for another one as my network has only been growing?" I don't think WiFi changed this to any large extend as WiFi really has only liberated the laptops which never used many network jacks in the pre-wifi days to begin with...
In conclusion I don't think that the advent of WiFi has anything to do with the loss of Network Jacks. If the jacks are looking emptier than before I'd think along the lines of:
And besides, who really cares how many jacks are open in your network....maybe you can disconnect a router or 2 and consolidate, save a watt or 2 of power at best.
Heh, I learned that one the hard way :-)
That's what I've got now and I'm sure more is coming...
Fair enough, but if our pirate gets in close, I tend to think Rate of fire is now more important than what we're firing, if your pirate is 50 yards off would you still want that M82? What would you change to if he managed to board somehow?
I was thinking about 50 cal, but I thought a M240 could keep an AK-47 out of range pretty well and could lay more metal on their deck faster than the 50 cal. My purpose being is to rake their deck with metal as quickly as possible before the pirates open fire.
Then again most 50 cal's can certainly lay plenty of metal on a pirate skiff fairly efficiently, we're not talking a large boat here, heck if the skiff doesn't have much metal in him, likely you'll poke holes in the hull with the 50 cal and he'll sink, the M240 may not necessarily penetrate...
How about if we enter the gulf of Aden together we compromise? We take one of each, and if we get the pirate further out, the 50 cal can take him down. If he gets in close (sneak attack or he's already on board somehow) the M240 opens up...
Well, pirates do have RPG's and I'm told a CIWS can knock one down (can't substantiate though, might be wrong). Also the later CIWS variants can target surface vessels at close range. So if I absolutely, positively have to atomize a pirate skiff at close range, accept no substitutions :-)
I'm not going out there to the Gulf of Aden unless I got one of these at a minimum, preferably something more long the lines of this. An M16 isn't bad though but I might need more oomph....
In no time at all they'll be Google #1 for every swear word, former Googlebomb phrase, blah blah blah, and the word turtle. As is their just reward :-)
This whole blah blah blah linking scandal is just so blah blah blah stupid. Heck maybe we can cue a blah blah blah Googlebomb to demonstrate just how bad Jonesday is with the handling of this blah blah blah issue.
BTW: Jonesday, if you're thinking of suing me don't bother, I've got no money and know plenty of lawyers who will work for me anyways. It's not so much blood from a stone as it's blood from a raging inferno.
Typically once an insurance claim is paid, you assign ownership of the destroyed property to the insurance company. At least that's what I remember from the 2 auto accident claims I had where the insurance company became owners of the wreck that I had made. So figure once he cashed the check, the cigars, or whatever was left of them, or the rights to the destroyed ones were given to the insurance company, hence arson since he burned them intentionally.