CD's just don't have enough bandwidth to get the job done properly. If they moved the sample rate to about 100Khz, and 24 Bit resolution, which is the limit of current technology... then you probably would go past even the reach of people with "Golden Ears".
Of course most of us our happy with MP3 files, which aren't anywhere near close. It's all a matter of tradeoffs, and what's acceptable.
Vinyl is better, if everything is done right. CDs are more reliable (until you scratch them too much). MP3s are more portable. Choose based on your application.
This is amusing... the low frequency components (~ 60 Hz) are wimpy little magnetic fields, probably from the speaker, which have nothing to do with the radio frequencies that are allegedly harmful. The scam potential is enormous, you can shield against magnetic fields fairly easily, just wrap the cellphone in mu-metal. A different speaker design would also be far more effective in reducing magnetic leakage. I could think of all sorts of ways to tweak that field strength... and do nothing about the actual safety.
Scam idea: Charge $100+ for a "modification" which "reduces radiation exposure by 99%"... and just swap out the speaker. Use the above mentioned "monitor shake" test as your proof
It's amazing to me how much power people give away because they don't understand science. I think Arthur C. Clark was right when he said "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic". It's not magic... but I could certainly treat it as such, and get quite a few people to believe me. (In this case, at least)
We're using HobLink JWT from http://www.hobsoft.com/products/jwt/jw t.html The only problem right now is that they have a goofy idea of licensing, want everything "per named seat", which is definely NOT something you want to have people be able to "check in from the road".
It does a very nice job of connecting to both WinFrame 1.7, and Windows NT 2000 Server - Terminal Services.
--Mike--
while your at it... rip drivers out of the kernel!
on
X Windows Must Die!
·
· Score: 1
I can't believe how big the "kernel" of linux is. Why did they suck everything known to man into the driver, instead of making loadable modules? If I don't have a 3COM 3C905B, or whatever... why do I need to have it linked into the kernel? Everything not absolutely essential to the purpose of the kernel (memory and task arbitration) should be pulled out, and made into loadable modules. If it requires a special boot file, or whatever (because the File System isn't loaded yet), it's worth the price. </RANT>
I'm shocked and disappointed that Linux can't fit a bare minimum version (with GUI) onto a single 1.44 Mb disk, like QNX can. If it's sooooo efficent, why is that?
Possible answers
Xwindows is huge
All the drivers are stuffed inappropriately into the kernel
Lack of Object Oriented features mean no code re-use
I'm dreaming, stuff like this done in the 80's (OS/2 on a 180k floppy disk on the COCO2) can't be done again
Nobody cares about code size when 60Gb of drive space costs $300 retail
Where can I get a java version of X (compatible with Netscape under Win9x) so that I can connect with a Linux box from anywhere? I have a Java based tool which lets me connect to WinFrame and to Terminal Server. I tried searching, but I just keep coming up with Netscape for Unix... nothing useful. If I had found one... I'd now have a VA Linux system on order (along with a copy of VMware) instead of a spiffy new Dell PowerEdge --Mike--
I believe that a kernel should be as simple and small as possible to get the job done (but no smaller). Virtualizing Memory and I/O space, along with processor threads are all appropriate. I think that everything else, including file systems, etc. belongs outside the kernel. This way, a single problem with a network card, sound card, etc. doesn't take out the system, it can simply be restarted, or other action taken.
Let's rewrite the Linux kernel as a kernel! What business do video drivers have doing in the kernel? It's the same mistake Microsoft made when they jumped from Windows NT 3.51 to 4.0. For that matter, nothing besides memory and core I/O belongs there.
For internet access: All that needs to be logged is who had what IP at what time. So you can track the odd email threat back to it's source, etc. For web servers: The standard log, with referers, is a nice thing. --Mike--
Disclaimer: I don't know genetics, and never took biology It appears to be a matter of taking DNA strands, breaking them up into smaller pieces, getting the individual genomes and then mapping everything back into a picture of the original. I didn't realize it until reading on the site that it's very possible to have read the codes backwards, which makes for an interesting twist on things(No pun intended). The Human Genome Sequencing Progress page shows that they have 21.1% complete data. I assume this means they are relatively certain everything fit right. (Imagine a puzzle with many pieces that fit in more than one place) I don't know how long until they get it all, but it seems to be paying off already. Of course, once done, they will have a map for one person, not everyone. (As I understand it) --Mike--
It seems to me that this is a great idea, but what if there is a mis-fire? I don't think I want to have something capable of lifting my weight go off at the wrong time, or with excessive force. It would be very nice to see a photo or diagram. --Mike--
Cold fusion disappeared from the news because it's just too damned easy to make weapons with it. Just implode an active cold fusion cell, and BOOM </CONSPIRACY_THEORY>
Indeed, slashdot is the perfect example of this Open Media - except the Open Media is so full of Closed Minds (as in a common slashdot slogan) that it's hardly open at all. Honest opinions get termed as "flamebait", and people restructure their views to the point where it no longer conflicts to the community.
I still hold that linux isn't the answer for everything (flamebait??), Microsoft still sucks(consensus), and software is too damned brittle(offtopic??).
Isn't Slashdot a form of Open Media? The responses get rated by other readers, and a group consensus is formed over time. The "first post" wave of people gets moderated down, and what's deemed informative, etc.. goes up. So, here we are, it's already being done. --Mike--
The reason we have the ITU, etc. is because most communications still is based on AM or FM modulation of a single carrier frequency. The spectrum, which is continous from DC past blue-light, is divvied up into "bands" for regulatory and practical reasons.
On the practical front, it's essential that two parties that wish to communicate be on the same frequency, and since the equipment necessarily has to be optimized for a specific range of frequencies, the "band" concept will be around for a long time.
For regulatory purposes, it's nice to be able to plan what type of signals are going to be in what frequency ranges, so that appropriate use is made of a finite resource. There are also restrictions as to the type of transmission, allowable power levels, and bandwidth used.
As we move forward into the future, there will still be a need for fixed frequency, single channel communications for a number of reasons, including local broadcasting, and other places where simple equipment is essential.
I believe that most other use of the spectrum will eventually go digitial, using technology such as CDMA to spread a signal out, and remove the dependence on a channel, in the traditional sense. The technology to make this happen is here, and it's getting cheaper much in accordance with Moore's law. I suspect we'll eventually see the single channel transmitters outlawed, just as spark-gap transmitters were outlawed with the advent of oscillator based transmitters.
The only remaining concern is simple, to quote Scotty: "I can not change the laws of physics". It's all a matter of increasing the ratio of signal to noise. Spreading a signal out decreases the effect of noise on any one frequency, and makes sharing possible. Using only the required amount of power helps as well. (Cell phones have done this since the beginning) Many of the new uses are short range in nature, which also helps, because a given frequency can be used in many different locations, with low power, at the same time. (The CELL in cell phone)
I rambled, but I hope it all makes sense, and answers the question somewhat.
Filtering traffic, QoS, and any other scheme to prioritize traffic is a bad idea, always has been, always will be. The consequences are always unknown, and unpredictible for the end users. How is the end user supposed to know why an application doesn't work any more? I suppose if the exponentially increased cost of running the network (because of filtering) isn't an issue, it's ok (barely) to do it.
Trusted systems require that the programmer be paranoid. I think that this is a very simple requirement, but one that is very hard on the psyche of the programmer. Do you really want to spend all of your time worrying if your code will break? Oh... wait... we all do!
The difference in trying to build a trusted system is the formalization. The team which tries to break a system (or certify it), is called upon to review the design, and try to find all weaknesses that might be used to break it. While this could be done with open source, you'd have to find someone to play the role of review team. This could be a serious problem.
I think that it's certainly possible for an open source project to build an operating system to match "C2" specifications, or better. The problem with meeting the Orange Book requirements is that they require trained people to review and test a system. This requires a large commitment of time, effort, and especially, money. Then when you are done, you have certified one version of the system, and nothing supsequent. The open source model is one of many releases, with bug fixes as we go, which has many strengths, but makes the rapid obsolencence of what would be the "blessed" version a big weakness. So, it's possible, but I don't think we should try for it.
I do think that there is a better way, if the testing procedures can be automated, so that the code can be covered from every angle, by the a set of computers pounding on a system, this could be MORE secure than a "Trusted System", at least at the C2 level. A set of workstations could be set up to pound a system, and try to find weaknesses, ala "SATAN", with emphasis on stack overflow weaknesses, etc. If a computer does all the functional tests that a human review team does during C2 certification, this is a good step in the right direction, if nothing else. Add to this a group dedicated to adding test conditions for new flaws, as they are found, or hypothosized, and I think you've got the winning combination for a truely secure platform.
What is really needed is a way to make all of the consequences of a line of source code visible. With C, C++, Delphi, Fortran, et al, there is no way to see all of the possible (side) effects of a line of code. That simple iteration, could have a bounding condition that causes a major hole in security, or it might be perfect, how can anyone know? I consider this to be the problem of brittle code
Object Oriented Programming is a good step in the direction, it does, if properly used, make code testable down to the object level. There need to be better tools for hammering on each object, and making sure they work as delivered, but at least you have something which CAN be tested on a unit level. OOP is good, but still not good enough. It does go in the right direction, because cracks in a system can be traced down to a single component, but those components can be brittle. Testing those components to a high degree brings us close to the goal (my goal, actually) of perfect code. Close, but no cigar.
A platform needs to be built which can make writing a computer program as simple as working with physical objects, such as hammer, nail, etc. When you pound a nail into a 2x4, you know right away if something goes wrong, and what all the effects are. It's easy to test, and visually verify the results. Coding needs to be the same way. This would take a lot of the "magic" out of the process of coding (and uncertainty). What ideas are out there for making this happen? Is a system of individually tested components good enough?
I have a few ideas, which I posted more than a year ago with my own manifesto at basicsoftware.com, ( and I need to review those ideas myself) but really haven't contributed anything myself. So I'm in the same boat... my contribution is a possible pointer in the right direction, and a keen eye on others, and their response.
The goal should be to make software better than any possible real world analogy. We need components that don't fail, and work predictably in a all conditions. If that's not possible, it would be good for the component to signal exactly what went wrong. Nails holding things together loosen over time, software doesn't have that weakness. Nails don't signal failure, but wouldn't it be nice if the nails in your roof signaled failure before the disaster struck?
I still hear the flyback squeal, sometimes I even hear them at 31 Khz, I guess I haven't had enough Metallica in my 36 years.;-) It's been a good reason to replace a monitor with a Sony Trinitron.;-)
"The C involved in this would probably take you all of 30 minutes to learn, assuming you're fairly good at other languages."
While it's true that it's possible for me to hack out a C program, the big question is why? Why try to find a working compiler, try to figure out gcc, and all the man pages that were inherited from a compiler written in the 70's? Why work in a language that considers case sensitivity to be a feature, and not the bug that it truely is?
C was a nice hack back in the 1970's... but time has moved on, it's time for a nice, powerful, object-oriented programming environment (or at least something cool like Forth, which can compile extensions into itself from the command prompt).
I really thought it might be fun... until I found out that the submission had to be in 'C'. I could do this as a MS-DOS program in Turbo Pascal, or in Delphi under Windows, or even as a CGI program under IIS... but since they don't support a universal platform, I'm out. 8(
The whole idea of secret information is to restrict access to it, and that nobody owns it, other than the government. If you were to put PGP or any other encryption layer into the works... where would the key have to be kept? No single person owns it, so the key would have to be taped to the computer it was associated with, or something equivalent to that.
Given the nature of the neat hacks that picked apart seemingly unbreakable encryption schemes in the past (Enigma, etc.), I wouldn't trust PGP with nuclear secrets (though it might be good for hiding things from the causal observer).
Bottom line... if you own a database, you'll protect it, if nobody owns it, nobody can protect it. The system is set up not to trust any person with the whole picture (apparently), so no person is going to be able to do a really good job of security. The best you get is a well documented set of prayers. (Just like untested backup procedures... but that's another story)
Theft: Taking someones property, leaving them without the use of it.
Copyright infringement: Copying someone's property... leaving them with the same property, with only the possiblitiy that they may experience less profit from it. It's also possible they may experience greater profit from the increased knowledge of the author's work.
The main reason for ComEd's problems in Chicago is due to political gamesmanship played by the powers that be. For years, ComEd was threatened with a loss of the franchise to sell power in Chicago, and all the equipment installed there. As a result of this threaty, they limited their expenditures for new equipment and maintenance in Chicago. It's not surprising that the results are a problem with infrastructure in the city limits.
I haven't kept up with recent developments, but when last I knew the situation well, they made a lot of money selling their excess capacity to other utilities who didn't predict the trends as well as they had. I'm fairly certain they're on the ball, and can keep the 'trons flowing.
It's not a simple matter to increase the voltage of a major distribution line. The distance between the cable and any near object has to be scaled in a linear fashion, which just can NOT be accomodated without completely replacing towers, and may not fit into rights-of-way, etc. At 138,000 volts and typical ratings of 700 amperes, (3 phase), a typical 3 phase distribution line can deliver approximately 300 Megawatts of power. The simple fix for more capacity is to use multiple conductors, with spacing to allow for increased cooling. I've seen this done in more rural settings.
To the best of my knowledge, the choice of 60Hz had multiple factors, but there was no big "switch" from 50 Hz to 60. There are some old systems in the local steel mills which still use 25Hz power, but nothing that runs at 50Hz. Increasing the system frequency requires re-engineering (and most likely replacing) all of the power plant equipment in the country. It's also a bad idea because it would increase the energy coupled to the environment in terms of stray electromagnetic fields, which already play havoc with underground pipes, and which may contribute to cancer, leukemia, etc. (The last point is highly debated lately).
Increasing the voltage in the home requires replacing all the home wiring in the US, for zero benefit, the problem is the big lines, not your house. Higher voltage in the home is an increased hazard, I've survived a few hits of 110 accidentally encountered, I would not have been so lucky had there been 440 volts available to push current through me.
The standard is set, messing with it won't help the supposed problem pointed out in the article.
While it may be true there is a growth in the use of power from electronic devices, the trend can not continue to rise exponentially for long, there are only so many homes to have new "home office" rooms built etc. We also have the softening effect of the EPA's "Green" program reducing the power consumed by computers, etc.
Here in Illinois, ComEd has been overbuilt by a large margin (or merely conserative, if you ask me), and have already handled loads (back in the 90's) that supposed watchdog groups said wouldn't happen until until the year 2017. It was fun to watch the system generation numbers go past 17 Gigawatts.;-)
The Y2K hucksters had me almost convinced... but not this time. The sky isn't falling.
Slashdot Mirror
Of course most of us our happy with MP3 files, which aren't anywhere near close. It's all a matter of tradeoffs, and what's acceptable.
Vinyl is better, if everything is done right. CDs are more reliable (until you scratch them too much). MP3s are more portable. Choose based on your application.
--Mike--
Scam idea: Charge $100+ for a "modification" which "reduces radiation exposure by 99%"... and just swap out the speaker. Use the above mentioned "monitor shake" test as your proof
It's amazing to me how much power people give away because they don't understand science. I think Arthur C. Clark was right when he said "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic". It's not magic... but I could certainly treat it as such, and get quite a few people to believe me. (In this case, at least)
--Mike--
It does a very nice job of connecting to both WinFrame 1.7, and Windows NT 2000 Server - Terminal Services.
--Mike--
I can't believe how big the "kernel" of linux is. Why did they suck everything known to man into the driver, instead of making loadable modules? If I don't have a 3COM 3C905B, or whatever... why do I need to have it linked into the kernel? Everything not absolutely essential to the purpose of the kernel (memory and task arbitration) should be pulled out, and made into loadable modules. If it requires a special boot file, or whatever (because the File System isn't loaded yet), it's worth the price.
</RANT>
I'm shocked and disappointed that Linux can't fit a bare minimum version (with GUI) onto a single 1.44 Mb disk, like QNX can. If it's sooooo efficent, why is that?
Possible answers
--Mike--
Where can I get a java version of X (compatible with Netscape under Win9x) so that I can connect with a Linux box from anywhere? I have a Java based tool which lets me connect to WinFrame and to Terminal Server. I tried searching, but I just keep coming up with Netscape for Unix... nothing useful. If I had found one... I'd now have a VA Linux system on order (along with a copy of VMware) instead of a spiffy new Dell PowerEdge
--Mike--
--Mike--
</Flame>
--Mike--
For internet access: All that needs to be logged is who had what IP at what time. So you can track the odd email threat back to it's source, etc.
For web servers: The standard log, with referers, is a nice thing.
--Mike--
Disclaimer: I don't know genetics, and never took biology
It appears to be a matter of taking DNA strands, breaking them up into smaller pieces, getting the individual genomes and then mapping everything back into a picture of the original. I didn't realize it until reading on the site that it's very possible to have read the codes backwards, which makes for an interesting twist on things(No pun intended).
The Human Genome Sequencing Progress page shows that they have 21.1% complete data. I assume this means they are relatively certain everything fit right. (Imagine a puzzle with many pieces that fit in more than one place)
I don't know how long until they get it all, but it seems to be paying off already. Of course, once done, they will have a map for one person, not everyone. (As I understand it)
--Mike--
It seems to me that this is a great idea, but what if there is a mis-fire? I don't think I want to have something capable of lifting my weight go off at the wrong time, or with excessive force.
It would be very nice to see a photo or diagram.
--Mike--
I thought up the conspiracy theory...and have found I'm not alone. Nuclear Pipe Bomb anybody?
--Mike--
Cold fusion disappeared from the news because it's just too damned easy to make weapons with it. Just implode an active cold fusion cell, and BOOM
</CONSPIRACY_THEORY>
I still hold that linux isn't the answer for everything (flamebait??), Microsoft still sucks(consensus), and software is too damned brittle(offtopic??).
--Mike--
Isn't Slashdot a form of Open Media? The responses get rated by other readers, and a group consensus is formed over time. The "first post" wave of people gets moderated down, and what's deemed informative, etc.. goes up. So, here we are, it's already being done.
--Mike--
On the practical front, it's essential that two parties that wish to communicate be on the same frequency, and since the equipment necessarily has to be optimized for a specific range of frequencies, the "band" concept will be around for a long time.
For regulatory purposes, it's nice to be able to plan what type of signals are going to be in what frequency ranges, so that appropriate use is made of a finite resource. There are also restrictions as to the type of transmission, allowable power levels, and bandwidth used.
As we move forward into the future, there will still be a need for fixed frequency, single channel communications for a number of reasons, including local broadcasting, and other places where simple equipment is essential.
I believe that most other use of the spectrum will eventually go digitial, using technology such as CDMA to spread a signal out, and remove the dependence on a channel, in the traditional sense. The technology to make this happen is here, and it's getting cheaper much in accordance with Moore's law. I suspect we'll eventually see the single channel transmitters outlawed, just as spark-gap transmitters were outlawed with the advent of oscillator based transmitters.
The only remaining concern is simple, to quote Scotty: "I can not change the laws of physics". It's all a matter of increasing the ratio of signal to noise. Spreading a signal out decreases the effect of noise on any one frequency, and makes sharing possible. Using only the required amount of power helps as well. (Cell phones have done this since the beginning) Many of the new uses are short range in nature, which also helps, because a given frequency can be used in many different locations, with low power, at the same time. (The CELL in cell phone)
I rambled, but I hope it all makes sense, and answers the question somewhat.
--Mike--
--Mike--
The difference in trying to build a trusted system is the formalization. The team which tries to break a system (or certify it), is called upon to review the design, and try to find all weaknesses that might be used to break it. While this could be done with open source, you'd have to find someone to play the role of review team. This could be a serious problem.
I think that it's certainly possible for an open source project to build an operating system to match "C2" specifications, or better. The problem with meeting the Orange Book requirements is that they require trained people to review and test a system. This requires a large commitment of time, effort, and especially, money. Then when you are done, you have certified one version of the system, and nothing supsequent. The open source model is one of many releases, with bug fixes as we go, which has many strengths, but makes the rapid obsolencence of what would be the "blessed" version a big weakness. So, it's possible, but I don't think we should try for it.
I do think that there is a better way, if the testing procedures can be automated, so that the code can be covered from every angle, by the a set of computers pounding on a system, this could be MORE secure than a "Trusted System", at least at the C2 level. A set of workstations could be set up to pound a system, and try to find weaknesses, ala "SATAN", with emphasis on stack overflow weaknesses, etc. If a computer does all the functional tests that a human review team does during C2 certification, this is a good step in the right direction, if nothing else. Add to this a group dedicated to adding test conditions for new flaws, as they are found, or hypothosized, and I think you've got the winning combination for a truely secure platform.
What is really needed is a way to make all of the consequences of a line of source code visible. With C, C++, Delphi, Fortran, et al, there is no way to see all of the possible (side) effects of a line of code. That simple iteration, could have a bounding condition that causes a major hole in security, or it might be perfect, how can anyone know? I consider this to be the problem of brittle code
Object Oriented Programming is a good step in the direction, it does, if properly used, make code testable down to the object level. There need to be better tools for hammering on each object, and making sure they work as delivered, but at least you have something which CAN be tested on a unit level. OOP is good, but still not good enough. It does go in the right direction, because cracks in a system can be traced down to a single component, but those components can be brittle. Testing those components to a high degree brings us close to the goal (my goal, actually) of perfect code. Close, but no cigar.
A platform needs to be built which can make writing a computer program as simple as working with physical objects, such as hammer, nail, etc. When you pound a nail into a 2x4, you know right away if something goes wrong, and what all the effects are. It's easy to test, and visually verify the results. Coding needs to be the same way. This would take a lot of the "magic" out of the process of coding (and uncertainty). What ideas are out there for making this happen? Is a system of individually tested components good enough?
I have a few ideas, which I posted more than a year ago with my own manifesto at basicsoftware.com, ( and I need to review those ideas myself) but really haven't contributed anything myself. So I'm in the same boat... my contribution is a possible pointer in the right direction, and a keen eye on others, and their response.
The goal should be to make software better than any possible real world analogy. We need components that don't fail, and work predictably in a all conditions. If that's not possible, it would be good for the component to signal exactly what went wrong. Nails holding things together loosen over time, software doesn't have that weakness. Nails don't signal failure, but wouldn't it be nice if the nails in your roof signaled failure before the disaster struck?
--Mike--
--Mike--
While it's true that it's possible for me to hack out a C program, the big question is why? Why try to find a working compiler, try to figure out gcc, and all the man pages that were inherited from a compiler written in the 70's? Why work in a language that considers case sensitivity to be a feature, and not the bug that it truely is?
C was a nice hack back in the 1970's... but time has moved on, it's time for a nice, powerful, object-oriented programming environment (or at least something cool like Forth, which can compile extensions into itself from the command prompt).
--Mike--
http://basicsoftware.com
--Mike--
Given the nature of the neat hacks that picked apart seemingly unbreakable encryption schemes in the past (Enigma, etc.), I wouldn't trust PGP with nuclear secrets (though it might be good for hiding things from the causal observer).
Bottom line... if you own a database, you'll protect it, if nobody owns it, nobody can protect it. The system is set up not to trust any person with the whole picture (apparently), so no person is going to be able to do a really good job of security. The best you get is a well documented set of prayers. (Just like untested backup procedures... but that's another story)
--Mike--
Copyright infringement: Copying someone's property... leaving them with the same property , with only the possiblitiy that they may experience less profit from it. It's also possible they may experience greater profit from the increased knowledge of the author's work.
--Mike--
I haven't kept up with recent developments, but when last I knew the situation well, they made a lot of money selling their excess capacity to other utilities who didn't predict the trends as well as they had. I'm fairly certain they're on the ball, and can keep the 'trons flowing.
--Mike--
To the best of my knowledge, the choice of 60Hz had multiple factors, but there was no big "switch" from 50 Hz to 60. There are some old systems in the local steel mills which still use 25Hz power, but nothing that runs at 50Hz. Increasing the system frequency requires re-engineering (and most likely replacing) all of the power plant equipment in the country. It's also a bad idea because it would increase the energy coupled to the environment in terms of stray electromagnetic fields, which already play havoc with underground pipes, and which may contribute to cancer, leukemia, etc. (The last point is highly debated lately).
Increasing the voltage in the home requires replacing all the home wiring in the US, for zero benefit, the problem is the big lines, not your house. Higher voltage in the home is an increased hazard, I've survived a few hits of 110 accidentally encountered, I would not have been so lucky had there been 440 volts available to push current through me.
The standard is set, messing with it won't help the supposed problem pointed out in the article.
--Mike--
Here in Illinois, ComEd has been overbuilt by a large margin (or merely conserative, if you ask me), and have already handled loads (back in the 90's) that supposed watchdog groups said wouldn't happen until until the year 2017. It was fun to watch the system generation numbers go past 17 Gigawatts. ;-)
The Y2K hucksters had me almost convinced... but not this time. The sky isn't falling.
--Mike--