A lot of people convert them into small, high-performing engines on R/C aircraft.
Of course, your link goes to somebody selling one, when in fact it's something best made (read: ripped out with pliars or whatever other tools you can find) yourself:)
Too bad the brushless ESCs are still so expensive...
steve jackson games were raided by the Secret Service, a completely different organization than the FBI.
To use a cliche -- `No shit, Sherlock!'
In case you didn't read my post very cerefully, I said `the FBI and similar organizations'. The Secret Service is relatively similar to the FBI in many respects, so I'd say they qualify.
Now it turns out the people raided were in fact "the bad guys" and the warrant (remember, the FBI HAD a warrant) was legit AND...er...warranted.
[ spelling corrected:) ]
As a general rule of thumb, the FBI and similar organizations don't go around raiding the `good guys'. It does happen sometimes (
one good example), but it's not the general rule. But the thing that tends to be forgotten is that even the `bad guys' have rights, and the FBI (and similar organizations) tends to violate these rights, and that's what people tend to get really upset about. And then there's things that aren't really `rights', but should happen anyways. For example, if they take all your hardware, and don't charge you with a crime, you should get your hardware back QUICKLY and UNDAMAGED. But I digress...
As for
Waco and Ruby Ridge, the people involved were definately `bad guys', but the government wasn't exactly being `good guys' either.
As for the FBI going after these DDoS monkeys, good for them. It's about time.
When hyperthreading was released, the industry had
to cope with similar issues.
Not really. Hyperthreading just `sort of' works like another CPU -- it's not really another CPU, and certainly it doesn't perform like a complete other CPU. So they really shouldn't charge extra for it.
But having two CPUs on one die, that is a second *real* CPU, and therefore something that they could legitimately charge `two CPU' prices for. But even these aren't brand new, so it's not a new question, and it's probably already been answered. My guess is that most vendors charge for the extra cpu, even though both cpus are only in one chip.
What will happen to those who must pay a royalty fee per CPU?
You'll have to ask those who charge such a royalty fee, or read through your contract carefully. Having two CPUs in one chip is nothing new (I think there's some IBM and maybe HP boxes using chips like that already), so you should be able to get an answer now -- ask what they're charging the users of those chips.
The benefit is that you get two CPUs in less space. You might even be able to get two CPUs in a system designed to support only one (because it has only one slot.) And if your system already has two CPU slots, this might give you four CPUs.
It might also use less power than two CPUs, but I wouldn't hold my breath on that one.
He could easily be showing a revolutionary new lattice structure into which aluminium atoms could be arranged
... or he could just be pulling stuff out of his butt. It's not like the technical consultants who work for the Star Trek shows and movies are known for taking great care to make sure that the stuff in the show fits in, even to the smallest degree, with the science that we know today:)
But it annoys me that Knoppix follows the Debian "stable" ideology to the letter. Yesterday KDE 3.3 is released, today Knoppix 3.6 is released including KDE 3.2.
I don't pretend to know much about how Debian or Knoppix feel about the use of `stable' software, (and I don't use KDE (or Gnome, for that matter)), but if KDE 3.3 just came out yesterday, that hardly gives the Knoppix guys time to get it put into Knoppix and tested before releasing today. They probably burned their final CD weeks ago and have been testing it, making sure everything was good before they released it. They're not likely to ditch all that just because KDE released a new version.
Imagine a Knoppix based off Gentoo's portage tree.
I'm not so sure that having the very latest and greatest copies of everything is so important, but if you want it, make it -- you do have source and all that. But don't come crying to me when the new version of KDE makes your CD image require 710 MB of space and so it no longer fits on a CD:)
Hard to buy a CD single, when you can't find them on the shelves.
Ex-zactly. Well, it was never a popular format to begin with, and now that they've decided to not stock it at all in most places, the sales are down even more. [riaa]All due to illegal downloading![/riaa]
Everyone has a right to a lawyer, and if you cannot afford your own the court will apoint you one.
That sounds fine and all, but that's only for criminal cases. The court will not appoint you a lawyer if the RIAA sues you.
No, it most likely will not be Johnnie Chochran
Actually, (for a criminal case) it'll probably be some overworked, brand new attorney who will not be able to mount anything but the weakest possible defense. Especially if your skin is black or brown.
IMO, downloading MP3s is no different than when we used to trade tapes at the skating rink or youth center. These tapes were often made from the radio (remember sitting with your finger on the PAUSE button?)
Well, the legal system typically doesn't care much about your opinion, but in this case, the RIAA would have loved to outlaw that too, but never was able to actually do so.
The sad thing, I think, is that those of us who would be brave enough to stand up in court aren't participating in the types of activities likely to get them targeted.
It's also quite possible that the RIAA is picking their victims carefully, only going after people they think are likely to settle rather than fight it. Certainly, I don't think they're going to knowingly sue a lawyer, for example.
The *last* thing they want is somebody to fight them and win. That would undermine everything they're pushing for.
Perhaps what we are seeing is the death of the CD as a medium for the single-artist fixed album for a significant proportion of the population.
Perhaps. Though in at least one case, the figures that the RIAA was using to show that `CD sales were down' was actually that the sale of CD *singles* was down -- which is a format that few people ever cared about enough to buy in the first place. Of course, the RIAA press releases and such didn't quite explicitly state that they were only looking at CD singles, but hid that in the fine print and footnotes.
Someone, please explain this to the driver of the 18-wheeler tailgating me!!
Technically, if he's tailgaiting you, he cannot be going any faster than you are (not for long, anyways). So if he's driving above the speed limit, so are you.
the first series of games to truly bring the D&D experience to video gamers
While they didn't actually use the D&D license, I'd have to say that Wizardry and later on The Bard's Tale brought the `D&D experience to video gamers' long before the SSI games did.
But of course, when you're writing a story about D&D and not the copy cats, I guess it makes sense to ignore the copy cats, even if they did it first. (Which sounds really odd. Copy cats usually do something second, not first:)
Around here (Austin, TX), I went driving around about a year ago (April 2003) and found about 66% of the networks didn't even use WEP.
Last April (April 2004) I did it again... and found about 66% of the networks DID use WEP. I guess I should go out and try it again -- I'll bet even more use it now.
Perhaps Austin is just more saavy?
Not that WEP automatically makes your network secure, but it makes it much much much more difficult to abuse, and pretty much guarantees that somebody will just go abuse your neighbor's WAP rather than try and break into yours. Things like locking down access to specific MAC addresses are snake oil -- sniffing for a MAC address and then using it later are quite simple. Only WEP (and things like IPSEC or VPNs) really get you much in the way of security.
Using it every day indicates a product or service which is of genuine value, unlike many of the dot-com mirages.
Perhaps, but allow me to provide a counter example.
Evite.
At least at one point, I was receiving Evites every day or so for this or for that. And I'd look at the page, so I guess that means I was using it. I still don't think it provides a useful product, or provides genuine value. (Though obviously some other people do.) Probably the only reason that they're still around at all is that it's a cheap `service' to provide, though it's not much of a business model.
Google, I see them as being useful and having a viable product and business model.
GPS tends to not track vertical changes easily with standard deviation as much as +/- 1000 ft.
I agree -- it's inaccurate -- but it's not anywhere near that bad. +/- 100 feet seems much more reasonable.
A calibrated altimeter will probably do a better job.
Just probably?:)
Good altimeters are much more accurate than this. Accuracy of +/- one meter is pretty common nowadays, and this is for a unit the size of a watch. Pretty amazing...
I think they now have recent GPS combined with altimeter.
A 1kW WiFi amplifier would probably put one in the running for a Darwin award. It would work on one's surroundings like a microwave oven, just not quite as fast;-)
Standing in front of microwave dishes to stay warm is nothing new (at least not up north where it actually gets cold.) It's not smart, but people do it.
I've got a friend who tore open a microwave oven and removed all the shielding, so it's now a 700 watt microwave projector. I'm not sure what he does with it (he jokes about killing WiFi with it), but he does have the background to understand the dangers involved (he's not a ham, but does commercial radio work.) Perhaps he uses it to kill termites:)
I've heard of CBers using as much as 20 kW of power -- incredible (and incredibly illegal) ! 1 kW CBers are probably a lot more common, and I'll bet that a large percentage don't have antennas far enough away to keep the RF exposure to safe limits. 2.4 gHz signals are absorbed much more readily by flesh than 26 mHz signals, but either way, you don't really want to be close to an antenna getting fed 1 kW for either.
And I stand by my prediction. Were it legal, you'd see lots of 100-1000 kW WiFi amplifiers, mostly done by people who wouldn't properly understand the danger. Being illegal, it's not so common but I'll bet somebody's doing it.
Have you heard of any hams who've experimented with signal propagation on 2.4GHz using the full-strength (relatively) power we have available to us?
Yes. The local ARES group has done some stuff with it, at least experimenting with setting up high power WiFi links between local hospitals. Compared to the 1200 bps packet that they usually do, it would be a whole lot faster. I don't know what kind of results they've gotten, however.
However, many possible uses of high power WiFi are basically shot down by the ham regulations prohibiting of the use of encryption. So whatever you did would be readable by anybody around you.
For example, when you use these bits of spectrum, you have serious power limits -- generally less than one watt. Which is probably the only reason they're useful at all, because if it wasn't for this, you'd have people with 1 kW WiFi amplifiers:)
(Note that the ham bands do overlap with the 2.4 gHz region, so by going under the ham rules, a ham operator CAN use a lot more power in that section. But most hams are quite considerate about not interfering with other people, even when they don't legally have to be. For the record, I'm AD5RH, but I've not tried any 2.4 gHz ham stuff. Yet.)
As for the microwave, there's a tiny bit of spectrum allocated for things like this, with few restrictions beyond 1) not emitting so much RF to be dangerous and 2) not emitting RF outside this band beyond a certain small amount. It's meant for `trash' signals, like that emitted by microwave ovens and some medical equipment. In theory, your microwave's signal should stay within the spectrum allocated to it, but the rules do allow it to radiate outside it a little bit, and that's probably what you see. Also, a strong signal (especially on a nearby frequency will `desense' a receiver), reducing it's sensitivity -- you might be seeing that too, even if the microwave is staying perfectly within it's little chunk of bandwidth.
Slashdot Mirror
Too bad the brushless ESCs are still so expensive ...
cerefully? Sheesh. Really, I can spell. I can!
In case you didn't read my post very cerefully, I said `the FBI and similar organizations'. The Secret Service is relatively similar to the FBI in many respects, so I'd say they qualify.
As a general rule of thumb, the FBI and similar organizations don't go around raiding the `good guys'. It does happen sometimes ( one good example), but it's not the general rule. But the thing that tends to be forgotten is that even the `bad guys' have rights, and the FBI (and similar organizations) tends to violate these rights, and that's what people tend to get really upset about. And then there's things that aren't really `rights', but should happen anyways. For example, if they take all your hardware, and don't charge you with a crime, you should get your hardware back QUICKLY and UNDAMAGED. But I digress ...
As for Waco and Ruby Ridge, the people involved were definately `bad guys', but the government wasn't exactly being `good guys' either.
As for the FBI going after these DDoS monkeys, good for them. It's about time.
But having two CPUs on one die, that is a second *real* CPU, and therefore something that they could legitimately charge `two CPU' prices for. But even these aren't brand new, so it's not a new question, and it's probably already been answered. My guess is that most vendors charge for the extra cpu, even though both cpus are only in one chip.
The benefit is that you get two CPUs in less space. You might even be able to get two CPUs in a system designed to support only one (because it has only one slot.) And if your system already has two CPU slots, this might give you four CPUs.
It might also use less power than two CPUs, but I wouldn't hold my breath on that one.
Or so they (somebody else) thought, anyways ...
Posting to /. while you drive -- what, $200? (many states prohibit the driver watching TV while he drives, a computer screen should qualify)
Tailgating - $200 or so?
Speeding -- much less of an issue than tailgaiting, but let's say $200 again.
Offering copyrighted works ($150,000/item.)
The *last* thing they want is somebody to fight them and win. That would undermine everything they're pushing for.
But of course, when you're writing a story about D&D and not the copy cats, I guess it makes sense to ignore the copy cats, even if they did it first. (Which sounds really odd. Copy cats usually do something second, not first :)
Last April (April 2004) I did it again ... and found about 66% of the networks DID use WEP. I guess I should go out and try it again -- I'll bet even more use it now.
Perhaps Austin is just more saavy?
Not that WEP automatically makes your network secure, but it makes it much much much more difficult to abuse, and pretty much guarantees that somebody will just go abuse your neighbor's WAP rather than try and break into yours. Things like locking down access to specific MAC addresses are snake oil -- sniffing for a MAC address and then using it later are quite simple. Only WEP (and things like IPSEC or VPNs) really get you much in the way of security.
Evite.
At least at one point, I was receiving Evites every day or so for this or for that. And I'd look at the page, so I guess that means I was using it. I still don't think it provides a useful product, or provides genuine value. (Though obviously some other people do.) Probably the only reason that they're still around at all is that it's a cheap `service' to provide, though it's not much of a business model.
Google, I see them as being useful and having a viable product and business model.
Good altimeters are much more accurate than this. Accuracy of +/- one meter is pretty common nowadays, and this is for a unit the size of a watch. Pretty amazing ...
They do.I've got a friend who tore open a microwave oven and removed all the shielding, so it's now a 700 watt microwave projector. I'm not sure what he does with it (he jokes about killing WiFi with it), but he does have the background to understand the dangers involved (he's not a ham, but does commercial radio work.) Perhaps he uses it to kill termites :)
I've heard of CBers using as much as 20 kW of power -- incredible (and incredibly illegal) ! 1 kW CBers are probably a lot more common, and I'll bet that a large percentage don't have antennas far enough away to keep the RF exposure to safe limits. 2.4 gHz signals are absorbed much more readily by flesh than 26 mHz signals, but either way, you don't really want to be close to an antenna getting fed 1 kW for either.
And I stand by my prediction. Were it legal, you'd see lots of 100-1000 kW WiFi amplifiers, mostly done by people who wouldn't properly understand the danger. Being illegal, it's not so common but I'll bet somebody's doing it.
However, many possible uses of high power WiFi are basically shot down by the ham regulations prohibiting of the use of encryption. So whatever you did would be readable by anybody around you.
For example, when you use these bits of spectrum, you have serious power limits -- generally less than one watt. Which is probably the only reason they're useful at all, because if it wasn't for this, you'd have people with 1 kW WiFi amplifiers :)
(Note that the ham bands do overlap with the 2.4 gHz region, so by going under the ham rules, a ham operator CAN use a lot more power in that section. But most hams are quite considerate about not interfering with other people, even when they don't legally have to be. For the record, I'm AD5RH, but I've not tried any 2.4 gHz ham stuff. Yet.)
As for the microwave, there's a tiny bit of spectrum allocated for things like this, with few restrictions beyond 1) not emitting so much RF to be dangerous and 2) not emitting RF outside this band beyond a certain small amount. It's meant for `trash' signals, like that emitted by microwave ovens and some medical equipment. In theory, your microwave's signal should stay within the spectrum allocated to it, but the rules do allow it to radiate outside it a little bit, and that's probably what you see. Also, a strong signal (especially on a nearby frequency will `desense' a receiver), reducing it's sensitivity -- you might be seeing that too, even if the microwave is staying perfectly within it's little chunk of bandwidth.