You know, this would be a *great* time for some math calculations. I'll pull some numbers and formulas out of my ass, and hopefully someone who actually knows what they are talking about can prove/disprove the idea that this is useful. I am just doing this to fuel discussion, and not because I actually know what I am talking about.
So, Given: Earth is considered stationary relative to the asteroid. An cosmic object of mass 'm' and velocity 'v', assuming 'v' is constant, that gravitation acceleration by the earth and sun are neglible.
We can actually find this point, where earth's gravity becomes non-neglible.
First, Fg (force of gravity) equals: Fg = Kg * me * m / d^2
where: Kg = the gravitation constant (too lazy to look it up) me = the mass of the earth (in kg) d = the distance between the centers of gravity (not the surfaces), in metres.
Now assume that this is a two dimesional collison between the asteriod, and the earth (since the path of the asteroid can be considered a straight line, and a straight line can be defined by two points, and the point of earth is a third, and all that is needed to define 2 dimensions is three points)
Now, we have to find 'd', such that the asteroid won't hit the earth.
e d / / /i *----X---------------- -Path of asteriod earth's x-intercept
Now, Fg = Kc*m*me/d^2, find the minimum distance "d" such that the path of the asteroid is changed enough to hit the earth (that is, to move the asteroid d*sin(i)) in the positive y-direction in the time it 'Ti' takes for the asteroid to travel d*cos(i).
Ti = d*cos(i)/v
So: Fg = ma = m*me*Kc/d^2
where:
a = acceleration of the asteroid by gravity
Therefore: a = me*Kc/d^2
a = vf - vo / Ti
where : vf = final velocity as it hits earth or crosses earth's x-intercept
v0 = the original velocity of the asteroid
Ti = change of time from the original position, to earth's x-intercept
Now v0 = 0, because the asteroid is not traveling in the y-direction to start with. a = vf/Ti
vf/Ti = Kc*me/d^2
vf = distance/time
where: distance = d*sin(i) time = Ti
d*sin(i)/Ti^2 = Kc*me/d^2
sin(i)/Ti^2 = Kc*me/d^3
Rearranging all of that to whatever you want, what we have is we need an asteroid with a certain time to impact, distance, and angle of incidence from earth to hit it. You will notice that mass of the asteroid is irrelevant at this point.
Now, if 'd', 'i', or 'Ti' is small/large enough to deflect the asteroid toward earth, we are in trouble.
Again, this assumes earth is stationary in respect to the asteroid. That is, that velocity of the earth is much, much smaller that the velocity of the asteroid.
Now we have to figure out energy in needed to push the asteroid out of a collision path. If this message generates enough karma, I will post a hot sequel entitled "Some *more* math calcuations". If not, then the calculation is left as a exercise for the reader.
This is the way my shop does alpha/beta conditions.
First, you have pre alpha state of software. Pre alpha testing include basic system stability, individual feature testing, and system testing, where each feature, as well as the whole system, are put through basic tests that would be considered "normal operating conditions".
After this testing is passed, alpha state is declared.
Then beta testing involves major tests that test the limits of the system; a lot of non-standard situations that the software should not have to encounter (but will, for any number of reasons).
If beta level is reached, then we released the software to our clients; and the rest of the bugs that slipped through the cracks are patched.
Wait a minute, I thought certain frequencies were reserved, and AM radio happened to be one of them. So why now is this being noted? You would imagine that, sitting in a lab Engineer Bob would think, "Hey, this frequency is between 400-1400KHz, I wonder what else is in that frequecy range".
Actually, wait another minute. How can you pipe 1.5Mb/s over AM frequencies, anyways? Don't you need 2x frequecy to send x b/s? Doesn't Nyquist theorem state this?
Ah, here it is: "The Nyquist-Shannon Theorem states that an analogue signal of bandwidth B can be completely recreated from its sampled form provided it is sampled at a rate s equal to at least twice its bandwidth."
Found at: (no, I am not going to piss around with HTML tags) http://www-dept.cs.ucl.ac.uk/staff/S.Bhatti/D51- notes/node4.html#equNyquistShannon
Sorry, just a bit of communication theory from a sleep derprived engineer-in-training.
>The reason we don't share technology with china >is because their is a very real threat that they >might use it to destroy us.
All technology can be used for war or peace. So you point is don't give China anything, no matter how useful it is? Not sure I agree or disagree with you. However, if China is approaching your level of technology, perhaps you should try to keep a couple steps ahead of them, instead of complaining as the near/surpass you.
>Incase you didn't realize, we aren't on the >best of terms
So? Now China is approaching American levels of technology. This means "mutually-assured destruction", instead of USA bombing China without fear of retaliation. It also means that someone out there can finally go tell the Americans to stuff it. It also means that if the Americans want a permanent foothold in space, they better do it now, or learn Mandarin. Competition is the best thing to happen to give the American people and culture the push needed to do something *useful* instead of abusing their position of dominance. Ask any Windows user if you don't believe me.
>We do share technology with other more friendly >countries
You mean, like encryption? Examples, please. For a country of sue-happy, patent-freezing, monopoly destroying companies/individuals (where should I start...), I have my doubts.
>So out of all the things you listed, only fag->bashing is a problem today
Geek oppression *does* exist. It's just not offical American policy. Consider it "media influnced grass-roots behaviour".
Race riots stopped in 1960? HAR! Go tell that to any Los Angeles resident.
By your own argument, name any current human rights violations happening in China right now. Oops, none? Then China is OKAY, because they are *not* *doing* *anything* *bad*, *right* *now*. Good China, here's some rocket science for not running over any students with tanks today.
Communist China has been around for ~80 years. China in it's many forms is MUCH older. Of course, if you want to compare ages of empires, don't forget that little Iroquois Empire that spanned most of North-Eastern US/Canada.
Now that I have finished Devil's Advocating, while I believe China will probably use the technology for Evil Things (tm), it is good that they are putting pressure on the USA to keep ahead (or abreast). Yes, they are doing Evil Things (tm) now (Tibet occupation, military shows off Formosa/Taiwan) will probably do Evil Things (tm) later. But remember, USA has done Evil Things (tm), too, and will probably do Evil Things (tm) later, as well. Don't turn a blind eye on *your* history, especially when condemning someone else's.
I understand your points, and they do have their validity. Do you understand mine? Can you see their validity?
Re:Avro Arrow!!!! boo hoo hooo, boo hoo hooo!
on
China Enters Space
·
· Score: 1
Great comment! Moderate this one up! Good links, BTW!
When the Americans' balls are to the war, they *always* turn to Canada for help (Avro, D-Day, and any American-sponsered United Nations motion; because, guess what, internationally, Americans are despised). However, us Canadians always get paid back in spades (can you say "Auto-Pact" and "unlimited defense treaties"? Knew you could!).
>if anyone knows their history >you should realize that war and the chinese go >together like yin and yang
Are you daft? How fucking stupid are you? China has been *repeatedly* and *successfully* invaded since Genghis Khan. The Mongols (not one, not two, but *three* generations of the Khan family), the British (Hong Kong and the Opium Wars), and the Japanese (pre-WWII) have all successfully occupied Chinese soil. What, you think that "Wall of China" thingy is a "militarily offsensive" structure? Feel free to pull your head out of your asshole any time now.
The only reason China is still a country today is that its greatest strength is converting the invading force to their culture. Marco Polo said of Kubali Khan is was impossible to believe he was Mongol. How many British customs have been created or reinforced by occupying China (tea?)? How many Japanese customs?
China has only recently become externally aggressive (Korea, Taiwan), and compared to how China itself was treated and subjegated (sp?), very kind to external countries. Before Communism, China's foreign policy was "You leave us alone, and we with leave you alone". More or less, this still holds true today.
To all those "China stealing rocket technology from us" whiners, China *invented* the field of rocketry, and Europeans *stole* that idea from the Chinese. I guess that the Chinese have just been paid back for that. As well, if open source standards and free information (you know, those ideals that you so mindlessly and hypocritically agree with, defend, and quote as gospel) would have been universally applied, they could have just have downloaded the plans from the web.
Of course, the human rights issues internally are pretty ugly, but hey, in America, you do or have done similar (but not on the same scale) things (McCarthyism, Salem witch hunts, fag-bashing, slavery, race riots, geek oppression, Japanese concentration camps in WWII), so climb off those high horses. As well, USA has historically been VERY aggressive (including invading MY home country, Canada. Does the term "manifest destiny" mean anything to you?).
Just some flame bait to piss off those knee jerkers who can't think before they post.
Re:Our Germans were better than their Germans
on
China Enters Space
·
· Score: 1
Actually, you are wrong. The USA *did* have rocket technology during WWII; the reason they "acquistioned" German rocket scientists was to keep them from falling into Soviet hands.
Dear Mr. BradBury: I have been a huge fan of your since grade school, and I just want to say I hope you have a speedy recovery! Here's hoping you the best!
Mod this comment up. Bluntly, if JP can justify that pictures AND addresses of his little sister were used on Packet Storm, then maybe I can understand his actions.
I will note that no-one who would have known about this (either by visiting or working on PacketStorm) has confirmed/denied this allegation. That sounds almost JP-like....
However, JP pretty much blew his big chance to set the record straight. Sure, maybe some of the questions didn't deserve to be asked, but then again, how many *good* questions didn't get asked? And how many good questions didn't get answered? I thought most of the questions were fair, and deserved to be answered. Aside from the as-of-now unproven allegations about the pictures/address of his sister (which WILL earn sympathy points with me, and quite a few others) and the sale of Packet Storm, he did ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to change my mind that he is a little boy that deserves to be put in a corner and left there. He did nothing to justify/.'s or the/. community's effort or time in to preparation, execution, and post-analysis of the interview.
As of light of this, I believe that/. should have some sort of running poll about who to interview. The poll could run concurrently with the current poll of the week, and it should consist of people who are willing to be interviewed by/. Then, the readers vote on who they want to hear from. Questions can also be posted here to be asked. While there are some problems here (who would wait for a week for readers of *any* magazine to vote to see if they are "good enough" to make the cut? Some interviewee might be sitting on time sensitive stories), but this site is dedicated to people like problems and create solutions. A solution *can* be found, if we look.
As it stands, the JP interview has demostrated a bug in the way interviewees are chosen, and this should be patched.
I believe Enigma was broken mainly because Polish spies managed to acquire a working Enigma machine or the plans for one in the early years of the war. I have actually seen an Enigma machine. It looks like the bastard son of a gearbox and a typewriter.
As well, isn't their software that allows a person to simulate a working Enigma machine? Of course, the version I am thinking of is for Windows...
I have installed FreeBSD, and the learning curve was about the same as when I learned Linux. Despite everything you have heard, I find that Linux's network utilities are more intuitive than FreeBSD's, and I would rather use Linux than FreeBSD as a network tool.
And yes, IMHO, FreeBSD felt like a stripped down version of*nix.
Drop the colors. I don't come to/. for the blinkenlights. It's chrome, cruft, feeping creaturism, and I don't want it. I get that enough when I use Windows.
Stimpy, you eediot! It was *Hannibal* with the elephants, not Attilla! You know, those little Rome-Carthagian War *things*? Hannibal was a brilliant strategist. However, Attilla was an mean ol' Hun. But chump change to Genghis Khan. Now *their* was a conqueror....
If any of the/. force is reading *any* of these comments, *please* reconsider this interview. I have been reading/. for close to 2.5 years, and this is the lowest, the absolutely lowest pile of shit I have ever seen. And personally, I really do not mind Jon Katz. He makes me think, sometimes; if I don't agree with him, I don't.
But this is the lowest. Please do NOT go through with this interview for two reasons: 1) If this interview goes badly, or JP thinks his good name (okay, I can't say that without laughing) is being tarnished, legal action will be taken. Of course, Andover lawyers may be up to the challenge, but is this a headache you *really* want to deal with? 2) *MANY* loyal readers, myself included will leave. This technocrat.net looks not to shabby; it reminds me of a little web site I used to visit during the spring of 1997 that challenged me, made me proud to be a geek, and introduced me to a greater world. That site used to be this one.
Maybe this is a sign, like MicroCruft putting up that little "Linux Myths" thing. You know, now the "geekiness" is cool, jocks need to put up a "Geek's Myth" page-o'-bull-puckey; something to derail the migration of women from jocks to geeks. Just my thoughts...
Paint me green, but isn't there work into creating virtual agents like Clothos? These agents would go out on the Internet, and search for things you are interested in. Then, by keeping track of what pages you actually read, they can re-define their search parameters, go back out on the Net...and so on and so on. For the first while, the pages would be high on quantity, but low on quality; but as the Virtual Agent adapts to what you like, the signal to noise ratio goes up.
You wouldn't even need a high tech AI to do something like this. The virtual agent could just do simple web-address and text-content tracking. For example, it could bring me every AMD/motherboard story from my favorite tech sites, but ban every Katz story from/. It could keep a word database that would determine what secondary words and phrases are most commonly found in the pages you do choose that it brings you. It doesn't have to be rocket science. The two problems that suffice *here* are:
1) This could bypass ad-littered crap pages, causing a drop in advertising, forcing either the commercialism that fuels internet growth away, or force said commericialism to invade high content pages which would be ruined if they became advertising-whores (like/.).
2) When (none of this *if* crap) someone figures out what search criteria the virtual search for, or what algorithm it uses, idiots, hit-mongers, and other scum will just create pages that will have the bare minimum needed to fool your agent to retrieving the page. How many people have seen this happen already?
For those of you who are interested, there is a trial version of ISS's Real Secure, which is a very good intrusion detection system; it's the best I have ever seen and used.
I fully agree that IDSs work best as a part of a greater security infrastructure. This technology is the perfect complement to firewall, just as internal alarm system complements a locked door. How many people *here* would trust only a locked door to protect their computer?
BTW: there are versions of RealSecure (agent, for sure, and I think manager to) that run on NT, Solaris, and (drum roll, please) LINUX, so check it out!
>>Watch a computer with a PII-300 and an IDE hard >>drive boot slower than a P-233 with an UWSCSI2 >>and you'll see what I mean.
Not bloody likely! Boot time for SCSI is horrible! It has to boot IDE first *regardless*. Then the SCSI's have to get detected. Then SCSI drivers, RAID setup, *then* OS boot up. This takes time...a LOT of time.
I have seen Win98 IDE boot twice as fast as a faster Win95 SCSI (the SCSI was on the motherboard). Sorry for the lack of XMHz numbers.
Slashdot Mirror
Well, other than Kg became Kc, and my diagram went screwy, it's good enough.
You know, this would be a *great* time for some math calculations. I'll pull some numbers and formulas out of my ass, and hopefully someone who actually knows what they are talking about can prove/disprove the idea that this is useful. I am just doing this to fuel discussion, and not because I actually know what I am talking about.
/i
So, Given:
Earth is considered stationary relative to the asteroid.
An cosmic object of mass 'm' and velocity 'v',
assuming 'v' is constant, that gravitation acceleration by the earth and sun are neglible.
We can actually find this point, where earth's gravity becomes non-neglible.
First, Fg (force of gravity) equals:
Fg = Kg * me * m / d^2
where:
Kg = the gravitation constant (too lazy to look it up)
me = the mass of the earth (in kg)
d = the distance between the centers of gravity (not the surfaces), in metres.
Now assume that this is a two dimesional collison between the asteriod, and the earth (since the path of the asteroid can be considered a straight line, and a straight line can be defined by two points, and the point of earth is a third, and all that is needed to define 2 dimensions is three points)
Now, we have to find 'd', such that the asteroid won't hit the earth.
e
d /
/
*----X---------------- -Path of asteriod
earth's
x-intercept
Now, Fg = Kc*m*me/d^2, find the minimum distance "d" such that the path of the asteroid is changed enough to hit the earth (that is, to move the asteroid d*sin(i)) in the positive y-direction in the time it 'Ti' takes for the asteroid to travel d*cos(i).
Ti = d*cos(i)/v
So:
Fg = ma = m*me*Kc/d^2
where:
a = acceleration of the asteroid by gravity
Therefore:
a = me*Kc/d^2
a = vf - vo / Ti
where :
vf = final velocity as it hits earth or crosses earth's x-intercept
v0 = the original velocity of the asteroid
Ti = change of time from the original position, to earth's x-intercept
Now v0 = 0, because the asteroid is not traveling in the y-direction to start with.
a = vf/Ti
vf/Ti = Kc*me/d^2
vf = distance/time
where:
distance = d*sin(i)
time = Ti
d*sin(i)/Ti^2 = Kc*me/d^2
sin(i)/Ti^2 = Kc*me/d^3
Rearranging all of that to whatever you want, what we have is we need an asteroid with a certain time to impact, distance, and angle of incidence from earth to hit it. You will notice that mass of the asteroid is irrelevant at this point.
Now, if 'd', 'i', or 'Ti' is small/large enough to deflect the asteroid toward earth, we are in trouble.
Again, this assumes earth is stationary in respect to the asteroid. That is, that velocity of the earth is much, much smaller that the velocity of the asteroid.
Now we have to figure out energy in needed to push the asteroid out of a collision path. If this message generates enough karma, I will post a hot sequel entitled "Some *more* math calcuations". If not, then the calculation is left as a exercise for the reader.
Off hand, how can the second post be moderated down as redundant?
Ryhmes with "Cit". One word. Starts with "sh". Smells bad.
I am such a geek that I found so FUNNY! Nothing like a bit a chemistry humor on a Sunday afternoon to brighten my day...
Teacher: "Is the bond covalent or ionic?"
Student1: "Isn't it ionic?"
Student2: "Don't you think?"
This is the way my shop does alpha/beta conditions.
First, you have pre alpha state of software. Pre alpha testing include basic system stability, individual feature testing, and system testing, where each feature, as well as the whole system, are put through basic tests that would be considered "normal operating conditions".
After this testing is passed, alpha state is declared.
Then beta testing involves major tests that test the limits of the system; a lot of non-standard situations that the software should not have to encounter (but will, for any number of reasons).
If beta level is reached, then we released the software to our clients; and the rest of the bugs that slipped through the cracks are patched.
This clear?
Wait a minute, I thought certain frequencies were reserved, and AM radio happened to be one of them. So why now is this being noted? You would imagine that, sitting in a lab Engineer Bob would think, "Hey, this frequency is between 400-1400KHz, I wonder what else is in that frequecy range".
- notes/node4.html#equNyquistShannon
Actually, wait another minute. How can you pipe 1.5Mb/s over AM frequencies, anyways? Don't you need 2x frequecy to send x b/s? Doesn't Nyquist theorem state this?
Ah, here it is:
"The Nyquist-Shannon Theorem states that an analogue signal of bandwidth B can be completely recreated from its sampled form provided it is sampled at a rate s equal to at least twice its bandwidth."
Found at: (no, I am not going to piss around with HTML tags)
http://www-dept.cs.ucl.ac.uk/staff/S.Bhatti/D51
Sorry, just a bit of communication theory from a sleep derprived engineer-in-training.
>The reason we don't share technology with china >is because their is a very real threat that they >might use it to destroy us.
All technology can be used for war or peace. So you point is don't give China anything, no matter how useful it is? Not sure I agree or disagree with you. However, if China is approaching your level of technology, perhaps you should try to keep a couple steps ahead of them, instead of complaining as the near/surpass you.
>Incase you didn't realize, we aren't on the
>best of terms
So? Now China is approaching American levels of technology. This means "mutually-assured destruction", instead of USA bombing China without fear of retaliation. It also means that someone out there can finally go tell the Americans to stuff it. It also means that if the Americans want a permanent foothold in space, they better do it now, or learn Mandarin. Competition is the best thing to happen to give the American people and culture the push needed to do something *useful* instead of abusing their position of dominance. Ask any Windows user if you don't believe me.
>We do share technology with other more friendly >countries
You mean, like encryption? Examples, please. For a country of sue-happy, patent-freezing, monopoly destroying companies/individuals (where should I start...), I have my doubts.
>So out of all the things you listed, only fag->bashing is a problem today
Geek oppression *does* exist. It's just not offical American policy. Consider it "media influnced grass-roots behaviour".
Race riots stopped in 1960? HAR! Go tell that to any Los Angeles resident.
By your own argument, name any current human rights violations happening in China right now. Oops, none? Then China is OKAY, because they are *not* *doing* *anything* *bad*, *right* *now*. Good China, here's some rocket science for not running over any students with tanks today.
Communist China has been around for ~80 years. China in it's many forms is MUCH older. Of course, if you want to compare ages of empires, don't forget that little Iroquois Empire that spanned most of North-Eastern US/Canada.
Now that I have finished Devil's Advocating, while I believe China will probably use the technology for Evil Things (tm), it is good that they are putting pressure on the USA to keep ahead (or abreast). Yes, they are doing Evil Things (tm) now (Tibet occupation, military shows off Formosa/Taiwan) will probably do Evil Things (tm) later. But remember, USA has done Evil Things (tm), too, and will probably do Evil Things (tm) later, as well. Don't turn a blind eye on *your* history, especially when condemning someone else's.
I understand your points, and they do have their validity. Do you understand mine? Can you see their validity?
Great comment! Moderate this one up! Good links, BTW!
When the Americans' balls are to the war, they *always* turn to Canada for help (Avro, D-Day, and any American-sponsered United Nations motion; because, guess what, internationally, Americans are despised). However, us Canadians always get paid back in spades (can you say "Auto-Pact" and "unlimited defense treaties"? Knew you could!).
>if anyone knows their history
>you should realize that war and the chinese go
>together like yin and yang
Are you daft? How fucking stupid are you? China has been *repeatedly* and *successfully* invaded since Genghis Khan. The Mongols (not one, not two, but *three* generations of the Khan family), the British (Hong Kong and the Opium Wars), and the Japanese (pre-WWII) have all successfully occupied Chinese soil. What, you think that "Wall of China" thingy is a "militarily offsensive" structure? Feel free to pull your head out of your asshole any time now.
The only reason China is still a country today is that its greatest strength is converting the invading force to their culture. Marco Polo said of Kubali Khan is was impossible to believe he was Mongol. How many British customs have been created or reinforced by occupying China (tea?)? How many Japanese customs?
China has only recently become externally aggressive (Korea, Taiwan), and compared to how China itself was treated and subjegated (sp?), very kind to external countries. Before Communism, China's foreign policy was "You leave us alone, and we with leave you alone". More or less, this still holds true today.
To all those "China stealing rocket technology from us" whiners, China *invented* the field of rocketry, and Europeans *stole* that idea from the Chinese. I guess that the Chinese have just been paid back for that. As well, if open source standards and free information (you know, those ideals that you so mindlessly and hypocritically agree with, defend, and quote as gospel) would have been universally applied, they could have just have downloaded the plans from the web.
Of course, the human rights issues internally are pretty ugly, but hey, in America, you do or have done similar (but not on the same scale) things (McCarthyism, Salem witch hunts, fag-bashing, slavery, race riots, geek oppression, Japanese concentration camps in WWII), so climb off those high horses. As well, USA has historically been VERY aggressive (including invading MY home country, Canada. Does the term "manifest destiny" mean anything to you?).
Just some flame bait to piss off those knee jerkers who can't think before they post.
Actually, you are wrong. The USA *did* have rocket technology during WWII; the reason they "acquistioned" German rocket scientists was to keep them from falling into Soviet hands.
Dear Mr. BradBury:
I have been a huge fan of your since grade school, and I just want to say I hope you have a speedy recovery! Here's hoping you the best!
Mod this comment up. Bluntly, if JP can justify that pictures AND addresses of his little sister were used on Packet Storm, then maybe I can understand his actions.
/.'s or the /. community's effort or time in to preparation, execution, and post-analysis of the interview.
/. should have some sort of running poll about who to interview. The poll could run concurrently with the current poll of the week, and it should consist of people who are willing to be interviewed by /. Then, the readers vote on who they want to hear from. Questions can also be posted here to be asked. While there are some problems here (who would wait for a week for readers of *any* magazine to vote to see if they are "good enough" to make the cut? Some interviewee might be sitting on time sensitive stories), but this site is dedicated to people like problems and create solutions. A solution *can* be found, if we look.
I will note that no-one who would have known about this (either by visiting or working on PacketStorm) has confirmed/denied this allegation. That sounds almost JP-like....
However, JP pretty much blew his big chance to set the record straight. Sure, maybe some of the questions didn't deserve to be asked, but then again, how many *good* questions didn't get asked? And how many good questions didn't get answered? I thought most of the questions were fair, and deserved to be answered. Aside from the as-of-now unproven allegations about the pictures/address of his sister (which WILL earn sympathy points with me, and quite a few others) and the sale of Packet Storm, he did ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to change my mind that he is a little boy that deserves to be put in a corner and left there. He did nothing to justify
As of light of this, I believe that
As it stands, the JP interview has demostrated a bug in the way interviewees are chosen, and this should be patched.
I believe Enigma was broken mainly because Polish spies managed to acquire a working Enigma machine or the plans for one in the early years of the war. I have actually seen an Enigma machine. It looks like the bastard son of a gearbox and a typewriter.
As well, isn't their software that allows a person to simulate a working Enigma machine? Of course, the version I am thinking of is for Windows...
I have installed FreeBSD, and the learning curve was about the same as when I learned Linux. Despite everything you have heard, I find that Linux's network utilities are more intuitive than FreeBSD's, and I would rather use Linux than FreeBSD as a network tool.
/. for the blinkenlights. It's chrome, cruft, feeping creaturism, and I don't want it. I get that enough when I use Windows.
And yes, IMHO, FreeBSD felt like a stripped down version of*nix.
Drop the colors. I don't come to
Stimpy, you eediot! It was *Hannibal* with the elephants, not Attilla! You know, those little Rome-Carthagian War *things*? Hannibal was a brilliant strategist. However, Attilla was an mean ol' Hun. But chump change to Genghis Khan. Now *their* was a conqueror....
Thanks for the link!
/. force is reading *any* of these comments, *please* reconsider this interview. I have been reading /. for close to 2.5 years, and this is the lowest, the absolutely lowest pile of shit I have ever seen. And personally, I really do not mind Jon Katz. He makes me think, sometimes; if I don't agree with him, I don't.
If any of the
But this is the lowest. Please do NOT go through with this interview for two reasons:
1) If this interview goes badly, or JP thinks his good name (okay, I can't say that without laughing) is being tarnished, legal action will be taken. Of course, Andover lawyers may be up to the challenge, but is this a headache you *really* want to deal with?
2) *MANY* loyal readers, myself included will leave. This technocrat.net looks not to shabby; it reminds me of a little web site I used to visit during the spring of 1997 that challenged me, made me proud to be a geek, and introduced me to a greater world. That site used to be this one.
Assuming:
X-Box is reality
AMD Athlon is the processor
Prove:
This means more compilers/support/experience for programming AMD's 3D NOW! instruction set.
The proof is left as an exercise for the reader.
Maybe this is a sign, like MicroCruft putting up that little "Linux Myths" thing. You know, now the "geekiness" is cool, jocks need to put up a "Geek's Myth" page-o'-bull-puckey; something to derail the migration of women from jocks to geeks. Just my thoughts...
>How much do they update realsecure?
Pretty often, but I think RealSecure has the functionality to let you define your own intrusions, so you don't have to wait for the update.
Paint me green, but isn't there work into creating virtual agents like Clothos? These agents would go out on the Internet, and search for things you are interested in. Then, by keeping track of what pages you actually read, they can re-define their search parameters, go back out on the Net...and so on and so on. For the first while, the pages would be high on quantity, but low on quality; but as the Virtual Agent adapts to what you like, the signal to noise ratio goes up.
/. It could keep a word database that would determine what secondary words and phrases are most commonly found in the pages you do choose that it brings you. It doesn't have to be rocket science.
/.).
You wouldn't even need a high tech AI to do something like this. The virtual agent could just do simple web-address and text-content tracking. For example, it could bring me every AMD/motherboard story from my favorite tech sites, but ban every Katz story from
The two problems that suffice *here* are:
1) This could bypass ad-littered crap pages, causing a drop in advertising, forcing either the commercialism that fuels internet growth away, or force said commericialism to invade high content pages which would be ruined if they became advertising-whores (like
2) When (none of this *if* crap) someone figures out what search criteria the virtual search for, or what algorithm it uses, idiots, hit-mongers, and other scum will just create pages that will have the bare minimum needed to fool your agent to retrieving the page. How many people have seen this happen already?
For those of you who are interested, there is a trial version of ISS's Real Secure, which is a very good intrusion detection system; it's the best I have ever seen and used.
I fully agree that IDSs work best as a part of a greater security infrastructure. This technology is the perfect complement to firewall, just as internal alarm system complements a locked door. How many people *here* would trust only a locked door to protect their computer?
BTW: there are versions of RealSecure (agent, for sure, and I think manager to) that run on NT, Solaris, and (drum roll, please) LINUX, so check it out!
>>Watch a computer with a PII-300 and an IDE hard
>>drive boot slower than a P-233 with an UWSCSI2
>>and you'll see what I mean.
Not bloody likely! Boot time for SCSI is horrible! It has to boot IDE first *regardless*. Then the SCSI's have to get detected. Then SCSI drivers, RAID setup, *then* OS boot up. This takes time...a LOT of time.
I have seen Win98 IDE boot twice as fast as a faster Win95 SCSI (the SCSI was on the motherboard). Sorry for the lack of XMHz numbers.