Re:Homegrown reactors are evil.
on
Duct Tape
·
· Score: 1
It wasn't on the football field, but under the stands.
All that is very true!
And on that site today, except for the small square reserved for a monument, the University of Chicago is building a new undergraduate dorm. Now that seems a bit amusing.
UofC has a long history with nuclear reactors...homebuilt and otherwise. Most recent was a group of students (yes, students) who built a breeder reactor which was a one of the "impossible" items on the annual Universtiy of Chicago Scavenger Hunt.
Maybe that 15 year old should look at applying to the University of Chicago...he might find it a familiar environment!
From the article: Editor's note: The plant experiments described in this story are funded by NASA's Human Exploration and Development of Space program. NASA is currently evaluating 43 Mars Scout proposals, of which this is only one.
Maybe the title should have been "NASA Undecided as to Invading Mars With Glowing JellyPlants"...
Either way, I want to know if any of the other 42 options are this strange...
I would have to say I would disagree with sending any sort of lifeforms to Mars in the near future with intentions of allowing free growth.
Would you please read the article before you post? I may be wrong, but it doesn't look like you did.... here's why I say that (really, I'm not trying to put up a flamebait post here!)
In the article, it does not talk about simply releasing plants into an uncontrolled environment on mars. Towards the end of the article the following appears: "
The first wave of Martian plants envisioned by Ferl and his colleagues would sprout inside a very small and protected greenhouse. " So the first experiment doesn't have the kind of intentions that you are speaking of...
So how about the future, you might (and should) ask? Well, earlier in the article, the following quote was talking about future use of plants on mars as life support systems for human colonists: "Such life support systems on Mars will probably involve growing crop plants in Martian soil within specially designed greenhouses, says Andrew Schuerger, a manager of Mars projects with Dynamac Corporation at the NASA's Kennedy Space Center." Clearly the intent is, at first, to keep the plants in a controlled environment, and not allow them to range free.
While that's all well and good, you also said: " Let us get some humans on the planet and set up some expirements to test for life before we think about Mars agriculture." And your point may be reasonable, to some fearful extent, but it is also addressed in the article:
"Learning to grow plants on Mars will be an important precursor to humans living there. Future explorers will need oxygen, food, and purified water -- items too costly to ferry from Earth to Mars on a regular basis. But plants can help provide those essentials inexpensively and locally as part of a self-contained "bioregenerative" life support system."
So the idea you suggest, sending a manned mission, is exactly what this research is trying to facilitate.
Now, maybe I am wrong on this, or maybe I am reading too much into your comment, but I do agree with the general spirit of your point that we should be careful about importing non-martian native organisms into the Martin environment. A real worry, along those lines, is what happens if the plants in those enclosed environments do get released, and possibly what forseeable situations would lead to such a thing occurring?
I dunno, it just seemed that your worries could have either been explained better or resolved by closer examination of the article. Indeed though, as I said, I do agree that there is something to at least consider or worry about before we send plants to Mars.
One should instead question the screwiness of a value system in which a kid would rather die than be fingerpointed for doing something bad.
I'd like some clarification on the above statement. Are we to call into question this particular child's self-constructed value system? Or are we supposed to call into question the value system of those that have raised him? Or instead, should we question the value system of a society/social situation which jumps quickly to level any opposition/breaking of its laws with punishments (or threats thereof) such as prison, when the opposition is a CHILD, of a mere 13 years? Sure, thirteen year olds are grown up in many ways, but isn't there some other answer...other than force (as the threat of imprisonment is)?
His post got moderated up, you dork. How does that taste?
Honestly, in my opinion, it doesn't make me look bad, it makes the moderation process look..well..idiotic. You're right, it is ironic, and I don't really know what to say to all that.
Regardless of what all you AC's (with heavy emphasis on the coward part) are posting about, I still stand by what I said originally. The statement made by the bluetooth developer doesn't make any sense. That was all I was trying to point out. If you want irony, there's irony in this case of a post about someone not making sense being replied to in such an incomprehensible and nonsensical manner. That's where the first bit of irony is.
Re:Something Lost in Translation, or ??
on
Bluetooth Bombs
·
· Score: 1
Ditto for your too cockeye.
tcp@mac.com Ohh, Mac.com huh, this should be a juicy one for countless direct marketers. Enjoy the spam.
WTF? "Ditto for your too cockeye"?? Man oh man. Do I really need to say more? Anonymous Idiot.
If you've got some point to make, make it, but how about you: a) actually log in b) write something that the rest of us can actually make some sense of.
until then, enjoy being pathetic.
Something Lost in Translation, or ??
on
Bluetooth Bombs
·
· Score: 1
``If it didn't have problems at the beginning, it wouldn't be great technology,'' insisted Ulrich Woessner of German Bluetooth company Lesswire AG, one of the event's organizers.
Um yeah, maybe I missed something but the logic in this statement doesn't seem to be there for me...
Even the developers of Bluetooth devices are having trouble communicating with others!
The initial 1.0 release -- code-named Cheetah -- that will be sold to consumers on March 24 will include most major features, but sources said users are likely to encounter a range of glitches.
Apple's OS development team has deferred many of these nagging issues to the Puma release, scheduled to be installed on the summer's crop of new Mac hardware at July's Macworld Expo in New York.
Topping the list of missing features, Cheetah will lack any support for DVD playback or authoring....
So which is it, a glitch or a choice on the part of Apple execs to rush the product out without features? In my-never-to-be-humble-opinion, a feature that has been left out is NOT a glitch, it may well be a flaw but a glitch is a different thing. New OS releases/updates always (at least in the case of MS and Apple) have bugs, which can be called glitches...but to call features intentionally left out of the release glitches confuses two seperate issues, as I see it.
The article mentioned above talks about simply using the IE1394 protocol, bridged over 802.11b wireless systems made by Intel. (look towards the bottom and read the "this is how it works:" section.) So essentially, the 1394 bus bandwidth is restricted by the 802.11b system's maximum bandwidth of 11Mbps, if I am reading it all correctly
While this is the first step in a "proof-of-concept" attempt, it doesn't make me sure that the high-bandwidth expected from wireless 1394 will be a reality.
Anyone else notice this, or am I mistaken in my reading of the article?
dont get me wong, i oppose intellectual property laws almost across the board
Maybe this is a reaction a little different than you might have expected...maybe not, anyhow, it's just a thought, and no flame is intended...anyway...
So you'd support say...microsoft, sun, apple, any company, or any person taking code that is say, open sourced, and integrating it into their products, which of course will be closed source, and making money off of it? That my friend, is also what intellectual property laws protect against. They are in fact underpinning the whole open source model as well as all the stupid and frivolous patents and what not. So, in my never to be humble opinion, one should be more careful when making such sweepingly broad positions.
Here's a rare slashdot post...(and a rare post for myself) I actually admit my ignorance here...
How can MAC addresses be changed? I've heard of this before, but I've never heard how and I suppose I am one of these people that just needs to understand things... so if anyone could fill me/us in that'd be informative!
Unfortunately, I do not see much progress towards a more balanced client-side of the web. Most office & personal installations are using IE (hey, it comes with the OS, installs out of the box, seems well integrated, hmmmm - bit of a no brainer
"Hey, it comes with the OS"? Now just stop for one second, look at the whole quote, and then look at the snipit "Hey it comes with the OS."
Buddy, it doesn't come with my OS and it is that kind of subtle, incideous way of thinking that'll ruin the web. (if it hasn't already).
Even without the SuperDrive, there is so much extra shit in one of these PowerMacs that you just don't get on the PC... built-in antennae and AirPort, FireWire, booting from USB and FireWire drives, faster PCI bus, mobo on the door, 1.5 GB RAM capacity, one little fan.
There is a WONDERFUL point hidden in there... the motherboard on the door...the simple fact of the matter is that the Apple case design is AMAZING. I work with Dell's latest offerings, as well as with Apple's and a few of Gateway's. Anyone who has had to do anything like adding RAM, swaping drives or installing PCI cards into one of Dell's machines and into a G4 knows how much more useable and well designed Apple's enclosures are. This in itself is worth some money.
If these things are legit and as impressive as the website claims, why are there no actual photos? Instead there are just some spiffy looking computer generated images...seems odd to me.
It comes as no surprise that sony included a memory stick slot.
However, I am just a little surprised to see that they've also included a type 2 PC card slot, as the functionality of these two i/o options overlaps in many ways. Admittedly, there are PC card options uses that the memory stick hasn't been used for yet.
It's nice to see that Sony isn't so intent on pushing its own technology that it'll refuse to use more standard hardware as well. In their laptop computer offerings that kind of philosophy is a given, but the AIBO is a real example of what I am talking about.
Divers may access reference material from a database and funnel data through the water to the surface over long distances.
Is it just me or is there a really bad pun somewhere in there?
Wouldn't it make more sense for someone to get a degree in Nanotech while learning about protein folding, quantum mechanics, and the like, so to increase the chance of being able to combine these methods, than to make someone take more time to get multiple degrees to learn the same stuff?
There's also all the theoretical parts
Just a random thought here...if quantum mechanics doesn't still qualify as theoretical, what does!?
****** not an important thought, just a random one -incongruity
So far as I am aware, you will only be tracked if you are suspect to criminal activities, in much the same way as more traditional wiretaps.
Unfortunately, the analogy to the phone/wire tap breaks down in one crucial way; the carnivore system is analogous to the government having a permanently setup tap on your phone and all they have to do to listen to you is take their earplugs out. In a wiretap case, they cannot, and are not allowed access to the phone system without a warrant. In the carnivore case, they've already been given access and there is only a promise that they won't abuse it.
That's a HUGE difference and if it doesn't scare you that the very organizations that are supposed to enforce the law don't themselves obey it, then I cannot and will not be able to convince you that the threat posed by carnivore to *everyone* is very real. And for that, I am truly sorry.
They can try to monitor all they like, there are still ways around it.
While the cat and mouse game can go on and on and people who want to go through all the effort of encrypting or otherwise evade any monitoring techniques can perpetuate it, that's not the real issue, IMHO.
One of the real issues is the everyday netizen who doesn't believe that they have any reason to need to be at all afraid of undue monitoring. This is a basic matter of privacy and fundamental freedoms.
What scares me is that the only people who will go through all the hoops to have some modicum of privacy are a) the ones with less than good intentions b) the paranoid c)the out-and-out criminals d) the computer elite who stay on top of the latest technical concerns with such matters and are able to be at least somewhat sure that they're privacy isn't being violated.
Anyone else is thus, all of the sudden exposed to a potential threat of monitoring, suspicion (due or undue) and danger that hasn't been seen in the USA, even during the time of Hoover or McCarthy. Frankly this scares the shit out of me, and I think it should scare everyone else as well. While I do very little in my life that I would have a problem if anyone else knew, it scares me that when enough power and enough suspicion are brought together, even the innocent and well intending can be "proven" guilty.
The real dispute at the U of C was over the use of personal network connections as servers.
There is no issue, no dispute here unless you admit that there is some reason that the administration of a university would not want individuals setting up unauthorized servers on university networks. So then, what reason is there?
From someone who has had to admin a corporate network, I can tell you why... bandwidth. If every box on the university (or company's) network had to be thought of as potentially a high-bandwidth consumer, with the real possibility of majority of them actually being such, then a lot more IT infrastructure and manpower would need to be allocated to monitor and prevent network congestion or outright outages, not to mention other problems.
The reason behind such a ban, or rather such a policy, it seems, must logically be such concerns...it's either that or the legal/moral bugaboo, take your pick.
As I attempted to point out previously, for many universities, heavy napster usage might not be a moral/legal issue. It may be simply a logistical problem that threatens to impinge upon the usability of the network for the expressed intentions, that is academic work . At the heart of most similar acceptable use policies is that very philosophy, and it manifests itself in various ways, such as the expressly stated prohibition of unauthorized servers on the universities networks. That regulation doesn't exist for itself, or in a vacuum, you have to look deeper at its causes...don't you?
While I am not sure where I fall on the matter of whether or not Napster should be banned on university networks, I believe that there are some other important things to look at when considering such a ban.
In general, University faculty, students, and staff may use University information technology (which includes privately-owned computers connected to the University network) in connection with the University's core teaching, research, and service missions. Certain non-core uses that do not consume resources or interfere with other users also are acceptable. Under no circumstances may faculty, students, staff, or others use University information technology in ways that are illegal, that threaten the University's tax-exempt or other status, or that interfere with reasonable use by other members of the University community.
I believe that a few important issues are raised in that policy. Universities are academic institutions, with educational goals at the heart of their existence. Network access is believed to further that mission in obvious ways. Now, the nasty part of Napster is how much bandwidth it can consume, especially if a user's computer is serving as well as receiving files. On a single computer basis, even moderate use isn't a heavy bandwidth concern, but when you consider the aggregate total bandwidth consumed by all the computers with Napster installed, especially those which are unwittingly serving, then you have bandwidth usage levels which present a problem. Bandwidth usage at such high rates by Napster users can arguably be seen as interfering with reasonable use by others on the network. Sure, there are ways to reduce this problem, such as a limiting of bandwidth at the router, but nevertheless, other concerns remain.
Some will be quick to point out that much of the network traffic on a university network is not used for academic reasons. Indeed, I will be posting this comment via a campus network. But many universities, and as shown above, the University of Chicago, do accept some personal use, but they do make it clear that such uses may not overly consume IT resources or interfere with others using the IT resources.
So, I would ask, do universities have the right to pick and choose, as they seem to be doing? At quick glance, I'd say that they do... it's their network, it's their IT staff that have to deal with bandwidth bottlenecks and service outages. They foot the bill for the network (granted, with money in part taken from student's tuition payments, though aren't those payments made for the education, which the acceptable use policy is intended to aid, by keeping usage in line with the university's mission) so don't they get to make the decisions how it should best be used?
"Federal law provides severe civil and criminal penalties for unauthorized reproduction, distribution or exhibition of copyrighted motion pictures..."
You are granted a license for the one copy which you purchase, you are not authorized by the copyright holder to copy the DVD which you own, therefore, this trick is clearly illegal.
As much as I wish it were otherwise, that's the law.
So, for limited size operations, four to eight machines, give or take, wouldn't a monitor/keyboard switchbox be the way to go? They 're really not that expensive of an option. There are currently on the market boxes which support all types of keyboard and video connection. Everything from PS/2 and Mac's old ADB to USB...Granted, this doesn't give all of the utility of the PC Weasel, it *is* a less expensive way to save space, power etc. in a server room.
Moreover, such solutions allow different platforms (ie Mac, Sun, and Linux Boxes) to be run through the same monitor and or keyboard. This isn't a huge selling point right now... But it may well become one, depending on how the whole Apple Darwin/OS X/OS X Server progression takes off, not to mention Linux PPC, which is an impressive port of Linux to the PPC architecture.
So, there are viable options to run linux boxes all but headless while still keeping them readily accessable to a monitor/keyboard connection.
The problem that I see with such a solution, though I totally dig the quick thinking in regards to using an Airport basestation, is range. The Wavelan base station, from what the press release and specs for other products are claiming the wavelan system is capable of 1500 feet, whereas Airport boasts 1/10th of that. Additionally, looking at the other product offerings from Lucent, they allow an optional antena to boost the range. Alas, the airport doesn't. That extended range is exactly why I would pay more... how much more? We'll see.
Slashdot Mirror
All that is very true!
And on that site today, except for the small square reserved for a monument, the University of Chicago is building a new undergraduate dorm. Now that seems a bit amusing.
UofC has a long history with nuclear reactors...homebuilt and otherwise. Most recent was a group of students (yes, students) who built a breeder reactor which was a one of the "impossible" items on the annual Universtiy of Chicago Scavenger Hunt.
Maybe that 15 year old should look at applying to the University of Chicago...he might find it a familiar environment!
Maybe the title should have been "NASA Undecided as to Invading Mars With Glowing JellyPlants"... Either way, I want to know if any of the other 42 options are this strange...
Would you please read the article before you post? I may be wrong, but it doesn't look like you did.... here's why I say that (really, I'm not trying to put up a flamebait post here!)
In the article, it does not talk about simply releasing plants into an uncontrolled environment on mars. Towards the end of the article the following appears: " The first wave of Martian plants envisioned by Ferl and his colleagues would sprout inside a very small and protected greenhouse. " So the first experiment doesn't have the kind of intentions that you are speaking of...
So how about the future, you might (and should) ask? Well, earlier in the article, the following quote was talking about future use of plants on mars as life support systems for human colonists: "Such life support systems on Mars will probably involve growing crop plants in Martian soil within specially designed greenhouses, says Andrew Schuerger, a manager of Mars projects with Dynamac Corporation at the NASA's Kennedy Space Center." Clearly the intent is, at first, to keep the plants in a controlled environment, and not allow them to range free.
While that's all well and good, you also said: " Let us get some humans on the planet and set up some expirements to test for life before we think about Mars agriculture." And your point may be reasonable, to some fearful extent, but it is also addressed in the article:
"Learning to grow plants on Mars will be an important precursor to humans living there. Future explorers will need oxygen, food, and purified water -- items too costly to ferry from Earth to Mars on a regular basis. But plants can help provide those essentials inexpensively and locally as part of a self-contained "bioregenerative" life support system."
So the idea you suggest, sending a manned mission, is exactly what this research is trying to facilitate.
Now, maybe I am wrong on this, or maybe I am reading too much into your comment, but I do agree with the general spirit of your point that we should be careful about importing non-martian native organisms into the Martin environment. A real worry, along those lines, is what happens if the plants in those enclosed environments do get released, and possibly what forseeable situations would lead to such a thing occurring?
I dunno, it just seemed that your worries could have either been explained better or resolved by closer examination of the article. Indeed though, as I said, I do agree that there is something to at least consider or worry about before we send plants to Mars.
I'd like some clarification on the above statement. Are we to call into question this particular child's self-constructed value system? Or are we supposed to call into question the value system of those that have raised him? Or instead, should we question the value system of a society/social situation which jumps quickly to level any opposition/breaking of its laws with punishments (or threats thereof) such as prison, when the opposition is a CHILD, of a mere 13 years? Sure, thirteen year olds are grown up in many ways, but isn't there some other answer...other than force (as the threat of imprisonment is)?
I dunno...it just seems odd to me.
-inco
Honestly, in my opinion, it doesn't make me look bad, it makes the moderation process look..well..idiotic. You're right, it is ironic, and I don't really know what to say to all that.
Regardless of what all you AC's (with heavy emphasis on the coward part) are posting about, I still stand by what I said originally. The statement made by the bluetooth developer doesn't make any sense. That was all I was trying to point out. If you want irony, there's irony in this case of a post about someone not making sense being replied to in such an incomprehensible and nonsensical manner. That's where the first bit of irony is.
WTF? "Ditto for your too cockeye"?? Man oh man. Do I really need to say more? Anonymous Idiot. If you've got some point to make, make it, but how about you: a) actually log in b) write something that the rest of us can actually make some sense of. until then, enjoy being pathetic.
Um yeah, maybe I missed something but the logic in this statement doesn't seem to be there for me...
Even the developers of Bluetooth devices are having trouble communicating with others!
So which is it, a glitch or a choice on the part of Apple execs to rush the product out without features? In my-never-to-be-humble-opinion, a feature that has been left out is NOT a glitch, it may well be a flaw but a glitch is a different thing. New OS releases/updates always (at least in the case of MS and Apple) have bugs, which can be called glitches...but to call features intentionally left out of the release glitches confuses two seperate issues, as I see it.
While this is the first step in a "proof-of-concept" attempt, it doesn't make me sure that the high-bandwidth expected from wireless 1394 will be a reality.
Anyone else notice this, or am I mistaken in my reading of the article?
-inco
Maybe this is a reaction a little different than you might have expected...maybe not, anyhow, it's just a thought, and no flame is intended...anyway...
So you'd support say...microsoft, sun, apple, any company, or any person taking code that is say, open sourced, and integrating it into their products, which of course will be closed source, and making money off of it? That my friend, is also what intellectual property laws protect against. They are in fact underpinning the whole open source model as well as all the stupid and frivolous patents and what not. So, in my never to be humble opinion, one should be more careful when making such sweepingly broad positions.
-inco
How can MAC addresses be changed? I've heard of this before, but I've never heard how and I suppose I am one of these people that just needs to understand things... so if anyone could fill me/us in that'd be informative!
-inco
"Hey, it comes with the OS"? Now just stop for one second, look at the whole quote, and then look at the snipit "Hey it comes with the OS."
Buddy, it doesn't come with my OS and it is that kind of subtle, incideous way of thinking that'll ruin the web. (if it hasn't already).
Even without the SuperDrive, there is so much extra shit in one of these PowerMacs that you just don't get on the PC ... built-in antennae and AirPort, FireWire, booting from USB and FireWire drives, faster PCI bus, mobo on the door, 1.5 GB RAM capacity, one little fan.
There is a WONDERFUL point hidden in there... the motherboard on the door...the simple fact of the matter is that the Apple case design is AMAZING. I work with Dell's latest offerings, as well as with Apple's and a few of Gateway's. Anyone who has had to do anything like adding RAM, swaping drives or installing PCI cards into one of Dell's machines and into a G4 knows how much more useable and well designed Apple's enclosures are. This in itself is worth some money.
If these things are legit and as impressive as the website claims, why are there no actual photos? Instead there are just some spiffy looking computer generated images...seems odd to me.
-incongruity
It comes as no surprise that sony included a memory stick slot.
However, I am just a little surprised to see that they've also included a type 2 PC card slot, as the functionality of these two i/o options overlaps in many ways. Admittedly, there are PC card options uses that the memory stick hasn't been used for yet.
It's nice to see that Sony isn't so intent on pushing its own technology that it'll refuse to use more standard hardware as well. In their laptop computer offerings that kind of philosophy is a given, but the AIBO is a real example of what I am talking about.
-inco
Divers may access reference material from a database and funnel data through the water to the surface over long distances. Is it just me or is there a really bad pun somewhere in there?
Someone thought this would be a marketable idea why?
There's also all the theoretical parts
Just a random thought here...if quantum mechanics doesn't still qualify as theoretical, what does!?
******
not an important thought, just a random one
-incongruity
Unfortunately, the analogy to the phone/wire tap breaks down in one crucial way; the carnivore system is analogous to the government having a permanently setup tap on your phone and all they have to do to listen to you is take their earplugs out. In a wiretap case, they cannot, and are not allowed access to the phone system without a warrant. In the carnivore case, they've already been given access and there is only a promise that they won't abuse it.
That's a HUGE difference and if it doesn't scare you that the very organizations that are supposed to enforce the law don't themselves obey it, then I cannot and will not be able to convince you that the threat posed by carnivore to *everyone* is very real. And for that, I am truly sorry.
While the cat and mouse game can go on and on and people who want to go through all the effort of encrypting or otherwise evade any monitoring techniques can perpetuate it, that's not the real issue, IMHO.
One of the real issues is the everyday netizen who doesn't believe that they have any reason to need to be at all afraid of undue monitoring. This is a basic matter of privacy and fundamental freedoms.
What scares me is that the only people who will go through all the hoops to have some modicum of privacy are a) the ones with less than good intentions b) the paranoid c)the out-and-out criminals d) the computer elite who stay on top of the latest technical concerns with such matters and are able to be at least somewhat sure that they're privacy isn't being violated.
Anyone else is thus, all of the sudden exposed to a potential threat of monitoring, suspicion (due or undue) and danger that hasn't been seen in the USA, even during the time of Hoover or McCarthy. Frankly this scares the shit out of me, and I think it should scare everyone else as well. While I do very little in my life that I would have a problem if anyone else knew, it scares me that when enough power and enough suspicion are brought together, even the innocent and well intending can be "proven" guilty.
The real dispute at the U of C was over the use of personal network connections as servers.
There is no issue, no dispute here unless you admit that there is some reason that the administration of a university would not want individuals setting up unauthorized servers on university networks. So then, what reason is there?
From someone who has had to admin a corporate network, I can tell you why... bandwidth. If every box on the university (or company's) network had to be thought of as potentially a high-bandwidth consumer, with the real possibility of majority of them actually being such, then a lot more IT infrastructure and manpower would need to be allocated to monitor and prevent network congestion or outright outages, not to mention other problems.
The reason behind such a ban, or rather such a policy, it seems, must logically be such concerns...it's either that or the legal/moral bugaboo, take your pick.
As I attempted to point out previously, for many universities, heavy napster usage might not be a moral/legal issue. It may be simply a logistical problem that threatens to impinge upon the usability of the network for the expressed intentions, that is academic work . At the heart of most similar acceptable use policies is that very philosophy, and it manifests itself in various ways, such as the expressly stated prohibition of unauthorized servers on the universities networks. That regulation doesn't exist for itself, or in a vacuum, you have to look deeper at its causes...don't you?
The following is an excerpt from the University of Chicago's IT acceptable use policy.: I believe that a few important issues are raised in that policy. Universities are academic institutions, with educational goals at the heart of their existence. Network access is believed to further that mission in obvious ways. Now, the nasty part of Napster is how much bandwidth it can consume, especially if a user's computer is serving as well as receiving files. On a single computer basis, even moderate use isn't a heavy bandwidth concern, but when you consider the aggregate total bandwidth consumed by all the computers with Napster installed, especially those which are unwittingly serving, then you have bandwidth usage levels which present a problem. Bandwidth usage at such high rates by Napster users can arguably be seen as interfering with reasonable use by others on the network. Sure, there are ways to reduce this problem, such as a limiting of bandwidth at the router, but nevertheless, other concerns remain.
Some will be quick to point out that much of the network traffic on a university network is not used for academic reasons. Indeed, I will be posting this comment via a campus network. But many universities, and as shown above, the University of Chicago, do accept some personal use, but they do make it clear that such uses may not overly consume IT resources or interfere with others using the IT resources.
So, I would ask, do universities have the right to pick and choose, as they seem to be doing? At quick glance, I'd say that they do... it's their network, it's their IT staff that have to deal with bandwidth bottlenecks and service outages. They foot the bill for the network (granted, with money in part taken from student's tuition payments, though aren't those payments made for the education, which the acceptable use policy is intended to aid, by keeping usage in line with the university's mission) so don't they get to make the decisions how it should best be used?
You are granted a license for the one copy which you purchase, you are not authorized by the copyright holder to copy the DVD which you own, therefore, this trick is clearly illegal.
As much as I wish it were otherwise, that's the law.
Moreover, such solutions allow different platforms (ie Mac, Sun, and Linux Boxes) to be run through the same monitor and or keyboard. This isn't a huge selling point right now... But it may well become one, depending on how the whole Apple Darwin/OS X/OS X Server progression takes off, not to mention Linux PPC, which is an impressive port of Linux to the PPC architecture.
So, there are viable options to run linux boxes all but headless while still keeping them readily accessable to a monitor/keyboard connection.
The problem that I see with such a solution, though I totally dig the quick thinking in regards to using an Airport basestation, is range. The Wavelan base station, from what the press release and specs for other products are claiming the wavelan system is capable of 1500 feet, whereas Airport boasts 1/10th of that. Additionally, looking at the other product offerings from Lucent, they allow an optional antena to boost the range. Alas, the airport doesn't. That extended range is exactly why I would pay more... how much more? We'll see.