Even if you had to go right now and not being able to ever see your family or friends again, you could say goodbye to them in a pre-recorded message, live from the space ship, or even better, from Mars. Not only to say goodbye, but also to explain them why you did it.
I know this wasn't the point of your post, but still, just a thought.
As far as I know, the term 'Synchronous' refers to the use the same clock signal at both ends of the communication link to synchronize the data transfer; in that sense, USB wouldn't be synchronous.
I think the performance edge that Firewire 400 has over USB 2.0 has to do more with USB having a host/peripheral scheme, where the low level protocol operations rely on the host processor; while FW is more peer-to-peer oriented, so those I/O operations are carried by the device controller and the host controller; as a result, data transfer rates are not severely affected by the CPU load or speed in the latter case. Of course, this scheme makes Firewire chipsets more expensive.
The suggestion was not to force vendors to give up the implementation of their drivers/firmware, what the OP wanted was making manufacturers release the specifications of how to talk with their hardware.
I understand your point about functionality being more implemented at the driver level instead of the actual hardware these days, but still, having the specs of the hardware (even if it doesn't do much besides being an interface for the physical world to the software that makes the hard work) could be useful, if an open source project to emulate that functionallity for those kinds of devices existed.
By the way, I'm not citizen of the US, EU or China, so I couldn't care less who dominates the hardware market, as long as I can get good quality and reasonably-priced hardware, and that such hardware wasn't made by having workers in poor conditions, polluting excessively or stealing real IP (real IP as the implementation of functionality, not bogus "IP" like interface specs or vague patents). Having the specs on how to interface to that hardware, even if I use the provided proprietary drivers, would be a big plus to me.
Lawyers my eye, this is probably covered by the DMCA reverse engineering, same as for unlocking XBoxes and so forth. The DMCA prevents the circunvention of DRM technologies for copyright infringing purposes. Whose copyrights (or other kind of IP for that matter) are infringed if you unlock an iPhone you purchased from Apple? It isn't been subsidized in any way from AT&T, nor have you any contractual relationship with them.
Simply purchasing an iPhone does not convey complete ownership and the right to dismantle protections under such law Gosh. You people are so brainwashed...
do you really believe that having a big name on your control systems means that those servers are secure against attacks? I never said nor implied such a thing. That's why I said one must isolate the control network from the corporate network as much as possible, even if you have to provide a way to gather data from the corporate network.
Normally you would have a control network (which includes control devices and HMI workstations) phisically isolated from the rest of your corporate LAN or intranet. If you have a process which is distributed over a wide area, you ideally will have dedicated links; if that is not possible, you would use VPNs to link the control networks using the untrusted corporate network.
Then you have the problem of management wanting to view in real time your process data. The scheme to protect your process will depend on the tools your HMI manufacturer has to put this information avaiable to others in your company. Many vendors provide industrial database servers and web servers for process visualization. One possible approach would be setting such servers on a DMZ between your control network and corporate intranet, and you would make sure only these servers can access data (in read only mode) from the control network. Additionally, you could have extra requirements to access these servers from the corportate network, so only designated people will have access to them.
I believe US "Free Trade" efforts have been forcing other countries into literal the text of their DMCA-style laws They have. CAFTA-DR (the Free Trade Agreement between the US, Central America and Dominican Republic) has a whole chapter devoted to Intellectual Property, which included provisions to force the adoption of DMCA-like laws in those countries (including criminalization of: copyright infringement, DRM circunvention, unauthorized decription of satellite signals). It also had a clause regarding patents, which is worded in a way that many believe it will be used to force the adoption of software patents, bussiness-model patents and the like.
Looks like it's only the 3 gear model. If it was the four gear model, I surely would have purchased it:P. I'll wait for the automatic transmission model.
Slashdot Mirror
http://xkcd.com/327/
Goatse? Tubgirl?
Did they name the university after a beer brand?
I know this wasn't the point of your post, but still, just a thought.
I think the performance edge that Firewire 400 has over USB 2.0 has to do more with USB having a host/peripheral scheme, where the low level protocol operations rely on the host processor; while FW is more peer-to-peer oriented, so those I/O operations are carried by the device controller and the host controller; as a result, data transfer rates are not severely affected by the CPU load or speed in the latter case. Of course, this scheme makes Firewire chipsets more expensive.
I understand your point about functionality being more implemented at the driver level instead of the actual hardware these days, but still, having the specs of the hardware (even if it doesn't do much besides being an interface for the physical world to the software that makes the hard work) could be useful, if an open source project to emulate that functionallity for those kinds of devices existed.
By the way, I'm not citizen of the US, EU or China, so I couldn't care less who dominates the hardware market, as long as I can get good quality and reasonably-priced hardware, and that such hardware wasn't made by having workers in poor conditions, polluting excessively or stealing real IP (real IP as the implementation of functionality, not bogus "IP" like interface specs or vague patents). Having the specs on how to interface to that hardware, even if I use the provided proprietary drivers, would be a big plus to me.
Actually the name 'Nevada' came from 'Sierra Nevada', which means 'snow-covered mountain range', so the OP wasn't so wrong after all.
Sorry sir, but the term "doll" is offensive to G.I. Joe. He'd rather be called action figure.
To ban FORCED implants on workers != ban on voluntary implants
Yes, and plutonium will be available at every corner drugstore.
The cell phone carrier owns you!
Normally you would have a control network (which includes control devices and HMI workstations) phisically isolated from the rest of your corporate LAN or intranet. If you have a process which is distributed over a wide area, you ideally will have dedicated links; if that is not possible, you would use VPNs to link the control networks using the untrusted corporate network.
Then you have the problem of management wanting to view in real time your process data. The scheme to protect your process will depend on the tools your HMI manufacturer has to put this information avaiable to others in your company. Many vendors provide industrial database servers and web servers for process visualization. One possible approach would be setting such servers on a DMZ between your control network and corporate intranet, and you would make sure only these servers can access data (in read only mode) from the control network. Additionally, you could have extra requirements to access these servers from the corportate network, so only designated people will have access to them.
I bet posting twice the same comment really makes you feel like rainman.
* -----> The joke
o
-|- -----> You
/ \
Exactly. You don't call it NT Kernel.
She can also e-mail old people living in Korea
Not with this one
If the U.S. government followed this advice, they could actually succeed fighting terrorism.