Maybe, but Linux is quite huge... I ran a "tar jtvf | wc" on a linux kernal bzip-tarball, and found that the file list alone had eleven thousand files; and I'm laying odds those aren't one-line files, either.
Now, I'll admit that about 2-3 dozen of those files are documentation, and another 4 dozen are likely the assembler code for the low-level. But is a program like Moss, designed to compare CS code in classes, going to take the kernel without hiccupping? Or is someone just going to feed the code in, one file at a time, and hope that it's all going to go well?
That's an interesting point, and while the likelihood might be good, two flaws exist in that reasoning:
1: Whether or not the results of such a tool could be admissible would be the decision of an independent expert in the court. Such an expert can use the tool to compare several test documents, some with others, some with their copies, and some with modified copies. Once the testing is done, the experts can proclaim shred's evidence as truthful, and admissible as evidence in court.
2: Too many people claim to be neutral, but they have a bias; look at the media these days! "Fair, balanced news," my ass.
I'd personally recommend against having any personal computer on the user's desk. Give them an X Term that uses some kind if high-encryption tunnelling scheme to deliver the applications to the X Server, and have departmental-sized or building-sized computers for the users to work on.
Now that's just begging for a catastrophe.
Rule #1: There is no such thing as 100% security, anymore than there is such a thing as 100% efficiency. No matter what security system you have, there is likely to be at least one hole.
Rule #2: Damage resulting from a problem is equally related to the importance of the equipment the problem occurs in. The more important the computer, the more fatal a hole can be.
Rule #3: The more centralized a system is, the more obvious the target. Now, if the whole of the DoHS depends on one massive computer with other computers slaved to it, then you have one massive target; no need to scout out the network first (risking detection yourself) And, per #2 above, the result would be completely disastrous.
Rule #4: Pride goeth before the fall. See Rule #1. Multiply that by 10x if the admin forgets rule #1. Another 10x if the admin forgets #4 as well.
Now, while I admit that having strategic computers are important, it's a foolish idea to put all your bits in one buffer. If each person is using a fully autonomous system, then they can still access the information local to their purpose, even when the main servers are down, for whatever reason.
You misunderstand the nature of the argument. This particular "trademark" says "This letter's the genuine article."
There's a lot of colas out there, but there's only one coke. There's many car companies out there, but there's only one BMW.
Now, the above are enforced by legal means, but in the "trademark" I'm referring to, is simply an appendage to a post/mail/what-have-you, that explicitly identifies that message as from the one true person who belongs to that name... something viruses and worms are, on average, too dumb to copy.
In this case, it's enforced through simple common sense, rather than a legal system.
In this particular case, however, it's all semantics.
The primary rationalization is not that it's used by so many people, or even that it's an easy target; the primary reason for all the virus activity in Windows XX is the same as it's always been... the people who are capable of writing viruses have a distinct contempt for Microsoft in general, and Windows specifically.
Add to this the desire to make people switch to more secure platforms, and you have a pretty strong argument to rationalize such antisocial behaviour.
Think about it. To write a virus, you need to know three things. 1: How an operating system performs its tasks, 2: What it takes to interrupt and/or corrupt the process, and 3: how to design the program to bypass security systems to do the interrupting.
Those three things are not something your typical R4D1C4L D00D is going to have the skill... or the patience and attention span to do.
Now, I won't say that Windows is that difficult, but before you write a virus, you do need to pay close attention, and find those holes.
That being said, the same could apply to Linux as well, but why waste your time hacking against the kernel, when you could just as easily hack the kernel?;)
A trademark is a word, phrase, symbol or design, or a combination of words, phrases, symbols or designs (for example, a signature phrase), that identifies and distinguishes the source of the goods (such as email) of one party (rightful sender) from those of others (trojans/viruses/worms/jerks/etc.).
Fits the description just fine... and just because that's a trademark, who says it has to be a REGISTERED trademark?
It's registered enough for those the fellow communicates with to accept.
Well, as anxious as I am to watch Dr. Who and the Tomorrow People (which I haven't seen in over two decades), I have to wonder what kind of financial impact this will have on the BBC.
What I read of this is that the BBC is going to put these up on the net, and hope people will pay for them anyways... somehow, I'm not perfectly certain it's going to work the way we want it to...
"Their focus would move away from commercial considerations to providing "public value", he said."
Moving away from commercial considerations? Are they moving away from having food on the table, too? I smell something fishy... a company, I don't care HOW well-intentioned, doesn't allow such a move unless it won't impact it's bottom line.
I will admit, one consideration mentioned, that this, being less quality than a DVD, would actually spur DVD sales.. in that respect, this would indeed be a fortuitous decision indeed... those who are curious will get to see what they're missing, and when they're hooked, they can go and buy the DVDs to see it in their full glory.
Another little thought...
on
Spray-On Computers
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
Anyone ever play the game "Total Annihilation?"
If we can find a power source for each component, what's the likelihood of designing spray-on computers that can ultimately reform themselves into a larger, more workable design?
One previous poster made mention the possibility of making them move (I forget the method they suggested), and they are going to have communicative abilities, so it seems reasonable to assume that with a schematic in a main computer somewhere, and a capable enough transmitter, the "spray-on computer" can essentially form up to make a REAL computer!
It would seem to me that it would be logistically more sound to start by making an intra-city WAN before working your way out to other cities.
When you write a program, you don't start from the big picture, you start by making the subroutines and functions that the overall program is going to run.
The functions and subroutines are the experiments to determine how viable the wireless second internet idea would work in an area where transmissions are practically flooding airspace, and once the bugs in that system are bashed out, then we start working on connecting with neighbor cities. Once this has been accomplished, we spread outward, using what we have learned in that intra-city process, and the short-range inter-city system.
If Joe Camper can set up a DirecTv dish outside his camper why can't I set up an AP and leave it there?
Well, one reason would be that Joe Camper did not make that dish, a company did, and that company would have run that dish through the FCC testing procedures to make certain it's legit; I believe that companies also purchase a range of transmission signals so that their equipment can legally broadcast on those airwaves.
Actually, the Berlin Consortium ( http://www.berlin-consortium.org ) is making efforts to do exactly that. They're not there, yet, but it's an interesting thing to look out for.
"Of course, there's the possibility of an underworld developing starting in the cities that jacks into the nets illicitly, but I've been watching too much anime lately."
Let me know if you find one... I think I'll join them.:-)
In any case, the question here is whether or not people will go to extremes to get wired up. Aside from the rich or the sick (spending $500 on that palmpilot when there's a huge hole in the roof... sounds sick in the head to me.:-), nobody will be getting the latest advancements for the sake of technology; only to make their lives easier, and NOBODY but the techno-elite buys all the gadgets in one fell swoop; one at a time, and at long enough intervals to provide some practice in the use of each, is the common practice.
In this man's case, All I have is a old desktop computer (P166), your normal wall-jack telephones, cable TV, A watch (w/a phonebook) and a scitentific calculator (so, I'm not extremely proficient in normal math... I still get by... with a little help)
Each thing (except the computer) is a tool used only when necessary. This is probably the same for a large number of people in general.
> At Amiga we are designing next generation > Internet-ready, consumer-oriented digital > appliances. The Amiga name is associated the > world over with user-friendly, low-cost, > powerful computing. We are taking this > philosophy into the next generation, enabling > products from hand-held Internet appliances to > high-end graphics computers that help the user > rather than frustrate them.
This was taken from their "Engineering Jobs" page at http://www.amiga.com.
Now, I realize that there had been a lot of marketroidian speech in the announcement, but you might notice "to high-end graphics computers" in the above statement. The fact of the matter is that Amiga is not abandoning the computer platform, but probing the market, since Amiga IS a commercial venture.
Even if the "Amiga Appliances" fall flat on their faces, it can still be believed that the Amiga computer might survive yet again.
I have never managed to acquire an amiga in my past; since I was too young to be making money at the time, but I am still intent upon getting one before I die... and I am certain that this rather rocky start is not the end for the Amiga... just another stasis until the platform can be revived again. In other words, don't give up on the Amiga just because some loser PHB decides it would work better in an appliance... who knows? You might find the results are better than expected.
As long as at least ONE of the amiga productions is still a computer, though, it is still likely to survive yet another Moore generation.
I'm not sure who said this, but it applies well: "It's not over until it's over."
And, for god's sake, DON'T assume that just because it's not using Workbench or AmigaOS, that it's not going to be as good as the originals... I am betting on the possibility that BeOS could actually revive it to it's former glory.
> I've always wondered what people did back in the > middle ages and such who had these problems?
I'll answer your question: They burned, hung, were crucified, died at the hands of an angry mob, etc.
In those times, such disorders were often declared possession by evil spirits; not always by the christian standard, but also by other standards as well. Be VERY glad you live in a society that is not as uptight as the dark ages.
X can run on multiple virtual consoles. In order to do this, though, you have to activate each instance of X on a different DISPLAY. This is done using whatever starting script you use, and pass the display number to the X server itself. An example in XF86: You use "startx --:0" for the default, and for every one after that, you use "startx --:x" where x is the display number. Each display will open in an unused console, and follow through with the standard scripts, be they xinit, or xdm, or whatever you use. I believe there is a way to change the default starting script so that it loads a different set of commands, instead of the initial scripts used. All Win95's DirectX does, is display the program at the top-left (default) corner, and change display accordingly. That's not quite automated with X, but it's possible to do, and you will still have all your windows and such on another console. Okay, I'll shut up now.:-)
Just out of curiosity, is it possible to link such a device to/dev/audio? It would be interesting to see what I could do with init, festvox,/dev/audio, and a winmodem if this is possible. (Voice mail, anyone?) However, if the line output capacity is purely hardwired, then I will know for certain why WinModems suck. Oh, one more thing: I hope we're mature enough not to even CONSIDER the concept of blue boxing with one of these things...
I will admit, when I wasn't chuckling, I was laughing hysterically. However, jokes and hoopla does not a radio show make.
Okay, so you don't have class, wit, or the answers, but I'm sure we can make radio show hosts out of you yet.:-)
If I were managing your show, here's what I would have you do. (This is rhetorical... I don't know the first thing about radio... lucky me.:-)
1: Announcing your show, then yourselves.
2: Giving the top slashdot headlines (Not necessarily word-for-word, but enough to give the listener some idea.). This will actually give those who have not seen your site a taste of the/. Effect.:-)
3: Reading the high-scoring replies in those headlines (probably only in the 4-5 range)
4: Any E(Snail)-Mail you find to be radio material (With the writer's permission, of course).
5: Telephone session, to allow for some extra topics of discussion to be placed. Who knows, some good topics can generally come from callers-in.
Finally, make sure you have some form of timer, set for some increment of 30 minutes. Most people feel they get something out of a show that is at least 1/2 hour.
Your bridging sounds need to be more standard, possibly placed during the segments the same way you provide the images on your webpage... with the appropriate sound accompanying the story/segment at hand.
As before, I know nothing of radio management (My desktop isn't exactly the neatest thing, either.:-), so you will have to take the above with a grain of salt.
Once upon a time, there was a specific type of person called a scientist. This person's job was simple: To discover the secrets of the universe and to use that to the betterment of mankind.
Since that long-forgotten time, however, scientific knowledge became too much for one person to know in it's entirety. So, "Scientist" became a blanket term, to cover multiple categories, such as "Computer Scientist," "Archaeologist," "Chemist," and "Botanist."
These all have some bearing on the original meaning of the word, but are not related directly to each other.
Once upon a time, there was a specific type of person called a hacker. This person's job was simple, to discover the secrets of the computer, and to use that to the betterment of mankind.
Since that long-forgotten time, however, the politics associated around the use of such machines became varied, and split the hacker subtypes in two... White and Dark. During the evolution of these two types came new recruits into the world of computing, with the tools already made available for them. These, in turn, split off in multiple directions, and joined political factions in the Hacker hierarchy.
Now, there IS no "Hacker" as being a person of computers. Hacker is an archetype for multiple types of people to fit within.
First and foremost, how does this work on a multitasking system? A system running multiple programs at once requires multiple configurations at once. This is simply not possible, and programs require a standard architecture underneath, else the programs' binary code itself would have to morph along with the processor itself.
Second, if programs running on the amorphous processor themselves need to morph, what's changing the processor's configuration.
Now, I believe that FPGA actually has an application, although dynamic processor configuration is not truly it's niche. However, suppose there is Flash ROM on a supporting BIOS that will configure the processor prior to bootup?
This will provide us with a definately novel idea: A processor that can be hacked as easily as a kernel.
The supporting BIOS itself would be accessible from the operating system, so that redesigning the default configuration could be done from inside the operating system. (And processor upgrades would be performed via software upgrades)
Another possibility would be to allow a processor capable of running virtual machines directly, as opposed to software emulation. This is possibly what they were hinting at when they mentioned x86 compatibility similar to the Alpha.
I believe this is actually a possibility about what Transmeta is up to. In fact, the two patents that Transmeta took out might actually involve the error-correction and programming methods of this type of processor.
But one thing's for certain, I believe this WILL have immense impact in the next three years.
******* DISCLAIMER *******
I am a software type, and a user. Men run screaming if I ever wrap my fingers around a soldering iron's handle. I am not qualified to actually understand this any more than I can tell what a circuit board will do by looking at it (without the printed info on the chips). I am not guaranteed to know exactly what I'm talking about.
This almost makes Commander Taco seem psychic via the way he just happened to "mention" his VCR and stereo.:-)
Okay, let's look over this, shall we?
Dependancy on high-bandwidth connections would not be likely; ISDN is too expensive, Cable Modems are not widely implemented yet, ADSL is even less-spread; And do you even know the cost of a T1, much less a T3? Transmeta would have to wait a LONG time. How long would their capital hold out under such circumstances? Even with the likes of Paul Allen filling their budget, the timescale that would call high-bandwidth connection for appliances would be a long time coming.
Also, Appliances do not require much in the way of instruction, being specialized as appliances are. This would also rule out emulation, as emulation allows a computer to support other platforms. (It's funny to think of a television emulating a fridge, although it would be a cool thing to have...:-)
This is more from someone that has a lot of time on his hands, but I think this might help some people grasp the enormity of the situation facting all hackers and the public in general today. First, I will say that Hacker is no longer a simple term to describe one type of person. It's now a blanket that sadly covers all computer-savvy individuals. This is because, following the invention of the Personal Computer by Woz, the archetype split into several major categories. The first, and currently the most persecuted archetype, is the True Hacker, commonly referenced by the titles of magi (Acolytes to Wizards/Gurus). These are commonly programmers and power users. They have a social structure that is now heavily intwined with the Free Software/Open Source communities, and is referenced entirely on how much is given to the support of all. This could be interpreted as a new and more successful form of Socialism, without the inherant flaws of the government-controlled form used in the olde Soviet Union. In this respect, the most valued members of this community are seen with awe, simply because their givts are among the most ubiquitous. The GNU tools, Linux, and Perl are the most obvious examples. The original split was two-way: The True Hackers previously mentioned, and the Dark Hackers. Dark Hackers are the original programmers of the newly-developed personal computers. Because of the cramped conditions of those computers at the time, these programmers mastered the use of machine code and assembly language. Due to the concept of a "Software Licence" at the time, these hackers followed a path that was deemed illegal by software companies... breaking copy protection. The practice was personal; the dark hackers did not practice simply to redistribute the software; the Warez Doods, which came after, did this. Dark Hackers actually found the task challenging, almost like a strategy game against the companies; they develop protection, the hackers found ways to circumvent them. Following the Dark Hackers came three new types, which exist to this day: Warez Doodz, Script Kiddies, and Criminal Hackers. Warez Doodz were often the siblings/friends/associates of these Dark Hackers. Warez Doodz had one remarkable hack of their own; they developed the distribution networks throughout the countries that delivered the freshly-cracked software to millions of people worldwide, and was able to exist, regardless of the legal actions to prevent them. The infrastructure was mostly destroyed by the Crackdown of 1988 (or was it 86?), and still managed to rebuild itself to this point, where Clinton now is effecting a second crackdown. Script Kiddies are the most common type of break-in artist of the digital era. They use software developed by the Dark Hackers to break into other computers. They do not know how to program, and commonly don't know what to do with the information when they get it, but they continue to practice their activites, while commonly answering to a society of their own, whose most revered members commonly refer to themselves as the "3733+" (eleet). This structure is a hierarchy, where the requirements for reaching a new level is to break higher security. Kevin Mitnick is considered among the higher ranks of this hierarchy; since I don't frequent this society, I can't really tell for sure. Criminal Hackers are just scary. These are the computer-savvy individuals who knowingly commit crimes using computers. The crimes are not computer-related; basically theft, sabotage, threats, even espionage (sanctioned by some government or not). Many of the reformed Dark Hackers now frequent a new category: the Sceners are the least-noticed of the Hacker Hierarchy. Sceners' only crime is simply nostalgia. The sceners maintain an ever-growing collection of hacks, information, and ideas for the platforms long since rendered obsolete by today's standards. It could be said that sceners are the most resourceful hackers in history, since their own hacks must, by design, be integrated with systems that cannot ordinarily be hacked; the Commodores and Apples of yesteryear definately apply here. Sceners are also the most ignored of the entire collective; they are considered by many as to be as obsolete as the machines they work with. It is now said that the media has picked the Script Kiddies, the Dark Hackers, and the Criminal Hackers as the scapegoats for the name "Hacker." This is because these groups produce more news in a week than True Hackers produce in a year. (Well, sensational news, anyways). It would be a good idea to keep the moniker of "Hacker," just to remain in the hierarchy, but it's time to define our branch as it should be. Okay, we ARE hackers. But in a single word: What kind are we?
> And you are going dump and discredit all of the > millions of dollars and thousands of man years > that you have sunk into Windows 2000 with some > secretly-developed, bastardized "MS-Linux" that > will neither work well nor integrate at all with > the rest of your products?
> Even in the depths of all of your Slashdot > induced paranoias are you people really > willing to buy this?
Yes. I will now explain what is (in my mind, anyways) the greatest Embrace - and - Extend trick ever.
First, let's have possible Microsoft spin of it's "Latest Linux-based product," Which I will call Windows LX.
*** Ladies and Gentlemen, Microsoft Corp. has joined with the Open Source revolution to bring you Windows LX, a combination of the power and stability of the Open-Source Linux platform, with Traditional Microsoft ease-of-use.
This product will be the first in a line of products designed to bring the benefits of internet technology and Open source to Microsoft customers. We will continue the Microsoft tradition of innovation and quality through the integration of Linux into your Windows experience.
Internet Explorer will still be integrated into your system, giving you the fully internet-based experience that you enjoyed with Windows 98 and 2001, and you will soon be able to run legacy Windows and MS-DOS applications through the Microsoft Compatibility Layer, coming soon in a Service Pack update, available free from the Microsoft home-site.
Also, anyone familiar with Linux and UNIX will find that they will be able to run their legacy applications on Microsoft Windows LX with little modification, as Microsoft has developed a series of tools to mimic the archaic UNIX system tools, while providing further integration into Windows LX features.
We at Microsoft are hoping that through this offer, we can provide proof that Microsoft is willing to open up to the community, and continue to innovate, while bringing ease-of-use features to Linux. ***
Scary thought, eh?
Okay, here's the reason that this *CAN* come to pass:
Linux is simply a kernel, a mass of system calls and drivers.
We, as a community, take the GNU tools for granted. This is actually taken far enough to allow compacency which equates Linux with UNIX. While there is nothing wrong with that, that further degrades the concept of GNU tools from the collective memory of the community.
However, this will also reduce the chance of catching a distribution that actually replaces the GNU tools with their own, proprietary offerings in their place.
What Microsoft can do, is take Linux, and integrate modified versions of their Xenix tools into the operating sytem's core layer. Above that, the new xenix-style tools can be remodified to take advantage of the Win32 library, and allow the frame-buffer to take advantage of the DirectX sytem library.
Overlay this with the Internet Explorer system shell, redesigned to further take advantage of the Operating system underneath, add a DOS-compatibility layer as a patch, or possibly a Plus! attachment, and you have a fully-proprietized Linux-based Windows system... only the kernel itself would be open, simply because of the GPL.
Now, the concept is a little hard to swallow, but get this: Microsoft would be in their bounds to do so with full legal backing. This would also provide a defense against the DOJ ("Look, we are now using Linux, which doesn't belong to anyone! We are playing on a level playing field... we DON'T have a monopoly, so you cannot try us anymore!"), and prevent the companies who now use Linux as their spring-board to further compete.
The most frightening thing about this is that Microsoft can then ignore development of the low-level layers of their system. This gives them more time to research "Integration."
Microsoft is not out of the picture, and they are certainly not without options!
Disclaimer: I am not a Microsoft professional, nor am I part of the IT industry. (yet) These are purely based upon my views, observations, and predictions.
Slashdot Mirror
Maybe, but Linux is quite huge... I ran a "tar jtvf | wc" on a linux kernal bzip-tarball, and found that the file list alone had eleven thousand files; and I'm laying odds those aren't one-line files, either.
Now, I'll admit that about 2-3 dozen of those files are documentation, and another 4 dozen are likely the assembler code for the low-level. But is a program like Moss, designed to compare CS code in classes, going to take the kernel without hiccupping? Or is someone just going to feed the code in, one file at a time, and hope that it's all going to go well?
1: Whether or not the results of such a tool could be admissible would be the decision of an independent expert in the court. Such an expert can use the tool to compare several test documents, some with others, some with their copies, and some with modified copies. Once the testing is done, the experts can proclaim shred's evidence as truthful, and admissible as evidence in court.
2: Too many people claim to be neutral, but they have a bias; look at the media these days! "Fair, balanced news," my ass.
I'd personally recommend against having any personal computer on the user's desk. Give them an X Term that uses some kind if high-encryption tunnelling scheme to deliver the applications to the X Server, and have departmental-sized or building-sized computers for the users to work on. Now that's just begging for a catastrophe. Rule #1: There is no such thing as 100% security, anymore than there is such a thing as 100% efficiency. No matter what security system you have, there is likely to be at least one hole. Rule #2: Damage resulting from a problem is equally related to the importance of the equipment the problem occurs in. The more important the computer, the more fatal a hole can be. Rule #3: The more centralized a system is, the more obvious the target. Now, if the whole of the DoHS depends on one massive computer with other computers slaved to it, then you have one massive target; no need to scout out the network first (risking detection yourself) And, per #2 above, the result would be completely disastrous. Rule #4: Pride goeth before the fall. See Rule #1. Multiply that by 10x if the admin forgets rule #1. Another 10x if the admin forgets #4 as well. Now, while I admit that having strategic computers are important, it's a foolish idea to put all your bits in one buffer. If each person is using a fully autonomous system, then they can still access the information local to their purpose, even when the main servers are down, for whatever reason.
You misunderstand the nature of the argument. This particular "trademark" says "This letter's the genuine article."
There's a lot of colas out there, but there's only one coke. There's many car companies out there, but there's only one BMW.
Now, the above are enforced by legal means, but in the "trademark" I'm referring to, is simply an appendage to a post/mail/what-have-you, that explicitly identifies that message as from the one true person who belongs to that name... something viruses and worms are, on average, too dumb to copy.
In this case, it's enforced through simple common sense, rather than a legal system.
In this particular case, however, it's all semantics.
The primary rationalization is not that it's used by so many people, or even that it's an easy target; the primary reason for all the virus activity in Windows XX is the same as it's always been... the people who are capable of writing viruses have a distinct contempt for Microsoft in general, and Windows specifically.
;)
Add to this the desire to make people switch to more secure platforms, and you have a pretty strong argument to rationalize such antisocial behaviour.
Think about it. To write a virus, you need to know three things. 1: How an operating system performs its tasks, 2: What it takes to interrupt and/or corrupt the process, and 3: how to design the program to bypass security systems to do the interrupting.
Those three things are not something your typical R4D1C4L D00D is going to have the skill... or the patience and attention span to do.
Now, I won't say that Windows is that difficult, but before you write a virus, you do need to pay close attention, and find those holes.
That being said, the same could apply to Linux as well, but why waste your time hacking against the kernel, when you could just as easily hack the kernel?
Let's look this one through, shall we?
A trademark is a word, phrase, symbol or design, or a combination of words, phrases, symbols or designs (for example, a signature phrase), that identifies and distinguishes the source of the goods (such as email) of one party (rightful sender) from those of others (trojans/viruses/worms/jerks/etc.).
Fits the description just fine... and just because that's a trademark, who says it has to be a REGISTERED trademark?
It's registered enough for those the fellow communicates with to accept.
Well, as anxious as I am to watch Dr. Who and the Tomorrow People (which I haven't seen in over two decades), I have to wonder what kind of financial impact this will have on the BBC.
What I read of this is that the BBC is going to put these up on the net, and hope people will pay for them anyways... somehow, I'm not perfectly certain it's going to work the way we want it to...
"Their focus would move away from commercial considerations to providing "public value", he said."
Moving away from commercial considerations? Are they moving away from having food on the table, too? I smell something fishy... a company, I don't care HOW well-intentioned, doesn't allow such a move unless it won't impact it's bottom line.
I will admit, one consideration mentioned, that this, being less quality than a DVD, would actually spur DVD sales.. in that respect, this would indeed be a fortuitous decision indeed... those who are curious will get to see what they're missing, and when they're hooked, they can go and buy the DVDs to see it in their full glory.
Anyone ever play the game "Total Annihilation?"
If we can find a power source for each component, what's the likelihood of designing spray-on computers that can ultimately reform themselves into a larger, more workable design?
One previous poster made mention the possibility of making them move (I forget the method they suggested), and they are going to have communicative abilities, so it seems reasonable to assume that with a schematic in a main computer somewhere, and a capable enough transmitter, the "spray-on computer" can essentially form up to make a REAL computer!
It would seem to me that it would be logistically more sound to start by making an intra-city WAN before working your way out to other cities.
When you write a program, you don't start from the big picture, you start by making the subroutines and functions that the overall program is going to run.
The functions and subroutines are the experiments to determine how viable the wireless second internet idea would work in an area where transmissions are practically flooding airspace, and once the bugs in that system are bashed out, then we start working on connecting with neighbor cities. Once this has been accomplished, we spread outward, using what we have learned in that intra-city process, and the short-range inter-city system.
If Joe Camper can set up a DirecTv dish outside his camper why can't I set up an AP and leave it there?
Well, one reason would be that Joe Camper did not make that dish, a company did, and that company would have run that dish through the FCC testing procedures to make certain it's legit; I believe that companies also purchase a range of transmission signals so that their equipment can legally broadcast on those airwaves.
*nod* Kali's definitely lacking it's props... it's a shame it's no longer in active development. That was the best $20 I ever spent. :-)
Actually, the Berlin Consortium ( http://www.berlin-consortium.org ) is making efforts to do exactly that. They're not there, yet, but it's an interesting thing to look out for.
"Of course, there's the possibility of an underworld developing starting in the cities that jacks into the nets illicitly, but I've been watching too much anime lately."
:-)
:-), nobody will be getting the latest advancements for the sake of technology; only to make their lives easier, and NOBODY but the techno-elite buys all the gadgets in one fell swoop; one at a time, and at long enough intervals to provide some practice in the use of each, is the common practice.
Let me know if you find one... I think I'll join them.
In any case, the question here is whether or not people will go to extremes to get wired up. Aside from the rich or the sick (spending $500 on that palmpilot when there's a huge hole in the roof... sounds sick in the head to me.
In this man's case, All I have is a old desktop computer (P166), your normal wall-jack telephones, cable TV, A watch (w/a phonebook) and a scitentific calculator (so, I'm not extremely proficient in normal math... I still get by... with a little help)
Each thing (except the computer) is a tool used only when necessary. This is probably the same for a large number of people in general.
--
> At Amiga we are designing next generation
:-)
> Internet-ready, consumer-oriented digital
> appliances. The Amiga name is associated the
> world over with user-friendly, low-cost,
> powerful computing. We are taking this
> philosophy into the next generation, enabling
> products from hand-held Internet appliances to
> high-end graphics computers that help the user
> rather than frustrate them.
This was taken from their "Engineering Jobs" page at http://www.amiga.com.
Now, I realize that there had been a lot of marketroidian speech in the announcement, but you might notice "to high-end graphics computers" in the above statement. The fact of the matter is that Amiga is not abandoning the computer platform, but probing the market, since Amiga IS a commercial venture.
Even if the "Amiga Appliances" fall flat on their faces, it can still be believed that the Amiga computer might survive yet again.
I have never managed to acquire an amiga in my past; since I was too young to be making money at the time, but I am still intent upon getting one before I die... and I am certain that this rather rocky start is not the end for the Amiga... just another stasis until the platform can be revived again. In other words, don't give up on the Amiga just because some loser PHB decides it would work better in an appliance... who knows? You might find the results are better than expected.
As long as at least ONE of the amiga productions is still a computer, though, it is still likely to survive yet another Moore generation.
I'm not sure who said this, but it applies well:
"It's not over until it's over."
And, for god's sake, DON'T assume that just because it's not using Workbench or AmigaOS, that it's not going to be as good as the originals... I am betting on the possibility that BeOS could actually revive it to it's former glory.
Now... all we need is a Video Toaster NG...
--
> I've always wondered what people did back in the
> middle ages and such who had these problems?
I'll answer your question: They burned, hung, were crucified, died at the hands of an angry mob, etc.
In those times, such disorders were often declared possession by evil spirits; not always by the christian standard, but also by other standards as well. Be VERY glad you live in a society that is not as uptight as the dark ages.
--
X can run on multiple virtual consoles. In order to do this, though, you have to activate each instance of X on a different DISPLAY. This is done using whatever starting script you use, and pass the display number to the X server itself. :0" for the default, and for every one after that, you use "startx -- :x" where x is the display number. Each display will open in an unused console, and follow through with the standard scripts, be they xinit, or xdm, or whatever you use. :-)
An example in XF86: You use "startx --
I believe there is a way to change the default starting script so that it loads a different set of commands, instead of the initial scripts used.
All Win95's DirectX does, is display the program at the top-left (default) corner, and change display accordingly. That's not quite automated with X, but it's possible to do, and you will still have all your windows and such on another console.
Okay, I'll shut up now.
--
Just out of curiosity, is it possible to link such a device to /dev/audio? It would be interesting to see what I could do with init, festvox, /dev/audio, and a winmodem if this is possible. (Voice mail, anyone?)
However, if the line output capacity is purely hardwired, then I will know for certain why WinModems suck.
Oh, one more thing: I hope we're mature enough not to even CONSIDER the concept of blue boxing with one of these things...
--
I will admit, when I wasn't chuckling, I was laughing hysterically. However, jokes and hoopla does not a radio show make.
:-)
:-)
/. Effect. :-)
:-), so you will have to take the above with a grain of salt.
Okay, so you don't have class, wit, or the answers, but I'm sure we can make radio show hosts out of you yet.
If I were managing your show, here's what I would have you do. (This is rhetorical... I don't know the first thing about radio... lucky me.
1: Announcing your show, then yourselves.
2: Giving the top slashdot headlines (Not necessarily word-for-word, but enough to give the listener some idea.). This will actually give those who have not seen your site a taste of the
3: Reading the high-scoring replies in those headlines (probably only in the 4-5 range)
4: Any E(Snail)-Mail you find to be radio material (With the writer's permission, of course).
5: Telephone session, to allow for some extra topics of discussion to be placed. Who knows, some good topics can generally come from callers-in.
Finally, make sure you have some form of timer, set for some increment of 30 minutes. Most people feel they get something out of a show that is at least 1/2 hour.
Your bridging sounds need to be more standard, possibly placed during the segments the same way you provide the images on your webpage... with the appropriate sound accompanying the story/segment at hand.
As before, I know nothing of radio management (My desktop isn't exactly the neatest thing, either.
Have fun.
--
Once upon a time, there was a specific type of person called a scientist. This person's job was simple: To discover the secrets of the universe and to use that to the betterment of mankind.
Since that long-forgotten time, however, scientific knowledge became too much for one person to know in it's entirety. So, "Scientist" became a blanket term, to cover multiple categories, such as "Computer Scientist," "Archaeologist," "Chemist," and "Botanist."
These all have some bearing on the original meaning of the word, but are not related directly to each other.
Once upon a time, there was a specific type of person called a hacker. This person's job was simple, to discover the secrets of the computer, and to use that to the betterment of mankind.
Since that long-forgotten time, however, the politics associated around the use of such machines became varied, and split the hacker subtypes in two... White and Dark. During the evolution of these two types came new recruits into the world of computing, with the tools already made available for them. These, in turn, split off in multiple directions, and joined political factions in the Hacker hierarchy.
Now, there IS no "Hacker" as being a person of computers. Hacker is an archetype for multiple types of people to fit within.
see my essay on such at " http://reteo.8m.com/tech.html."
Enjoy.
--
This is, in fact, extremely accurate. However, our friends are only measuring conscious memory.
.com/SiliconValley/Network/5389/chaos.html
Since the scope of my message would overflow my system's 32MB of RAM (At least using Netscape; This reply would take three pages!), I have placed the response on my homepage at http://www.geocities
--
First and foremost, how does this work on a multitasking system? A system running multiple programs at once requires multiple configurations at once. This is simply not possible, and programs require a standard architecture underneath, else the programs' binary code itself would have to morph along with the processor itself.
Second, if programs running on the amorphous processor themselves need to morph, what's changing the processor's configuration.
Now, I believe that FPGA actually has an application, although dynamic processor configuration is not truly it's niche. However, suppose there is Flash ROM on a supporting BIOS that will configure the processor prior to bootup?
This will provide us with a definately novel idea: A processor that can be hacked as easily as a kernel.
The supporting BIOS itself would be accessible from the operating system, so that redesigning the default configuration could be done from inside the operating system. (And processor upgrades would be performed via software upgrades)
Another possibility would be to allow a processor capable of running virtual machines directly, as opposed to software emulation. This is possibly what they were hinting at when they mentioned x86 compatibility similar to the Alpha.
I believe this is actually a possibility about what Transmeta is up to. In fact, the two patents that Transmeta took out might actually involve the error-correction and programming methods of this type of processor.
But one thing's for certain, I believe this WILL have immense impact in the next three years.
******* DISCLAIMER *******
I am a software type, and a user. Men run screaming if I ever wrap my fingers around a soldering iron's handle. I am not qualified to actually understand this any more than I can tell what a circuit board will do by looking at it (without the printed info on the chips). I am not guaranteed to know exactly what I'm talking about.
Okay, anyone want to... correct my ignorance?
--
Wow... Sounds official. :-)
:-)
:-)
This almost makes Commander Taco seem psychic via the way he just happened to "mention" his VCR and stereo.
Okay, let's look over this, shall we?
Dependancy on high-bandwidth connections would not be likely; ISDN is too expensive, Cable Modems are not widely implemented yet, ADSL is even less-spread; And do you even know the cost of a T1, much less a T3? Transmeta would have to wait a LONG time. How long would their capital hold out under such circumstances? Even with the likes of Paul Allen filling their budget, the timescale that would call high-bandwidth connection for appliances would be a long time coming.
Also, Appliances do not require much in the way of instruction, being specialized as appliances are. This would also rule out emulation, as emulation allows a computer to support other platforms. (It's funny to think of a television emulating a fridge, although it would be a cool thing to have...
--
This is more from someone that has a lot of time on his hands, but I think this might help some people grasp the enormity of the situation facting all hackers and the public in general today.
First, I will say that Hacker is no longer a simple term to describe one type of person. It's now a blanket that sadly covers all computer-savvy individuals. This is because, following the invention of the Personal Computer by Woz, the archetype split into several major categories.
The first, and currently the most persecuted archetype, is the True Hacker, commonly referenced by the titles of magi (Acolytes to Wizards/Gurus). These are commonly programmers and power users. They have a social structure that is now heavily intwined with the Free Software/Open Source communities, and is referenced entirely on how much is given to the support of all. This could be interpreted as a new and more successful form of Socialism, without the inherant flaws of the government-controlled form used in the olde Soviet Union. In this respect, the most valued members of this community are seen with awe, simply because their givts are among the most ubiquitous. The GNU tools, Linux, and Perl are the most obvious examples.
The original split was two-way: The True Hackers previously mentioned, and the Dark Hackers. Dark Hackers are the original programmers of the newly-developed personal computers. Because of the cramped conditions of those computers at the time, these programmers mastered the use of machine code and assembly language. Due to the concept of a "Software Licence" at the time, these hackers followed a path that was deemed illegal by software companies... breaking copy protection. The practice was personal; the dark hackers did not practice simply to redistribute the software; the Warez Doods, which came after, did this. Dark Hackers actually found the task challenging, almost like a strategy game against the companies; they develop protection, the hackers found ways to circumvent them.
Following the Dark Hackers came three new types, which exist to this day: Warez Doodz, Script Kiddies, and Criminal Hackers.
Warez Doodz were often the siblings/friends/associates of these Dark Hackers. Warez Doodz had one remarkable hack of their own; they developed the distribution networks throughout the countries that delivered the freshly-cracked software to millions of people worldwide, and was able to exist, regardless of the legal actions to prevent them. The infrastructure was mostly destroyed by the Crackdown of 1988 (or was it 86?), and still managed to rebuild itself to this point, where Clinton now is effecting a second crackdown.
Script Kiddies are the most common type of break-in artist of the digital era. They use software developed by the Dark Hackers to break into other computers. They do not know how to program, and commonly don't know what to do with the information when they get it, but they continue to practice their activites, while commonly answering to a society of their own, whose most revered members commonly refer to themselves as the "3733+" (eleet). This structure is a hierarchy, where the requirements for reaching a new level is to break higher security. Kevin Mitnick is considered among the higher ranks of this hierarchy; since I don't frequent this society, I can't really tell for sure.
Criminal Hackers are just scary. These are the computer-savvy individuals who knowingly commit crimes using computers. The crimes are not computer-related; basically theft, sabotage, threats, even espionage (sanctioned by some government or not).
Many of the reformed Dark Hackers now frequent a new category: the Sceners are the least-noticed of the Hacker Hierarchy. Sceners' only crime is simply nostalgia. The sceners maintain an ever-growing collection of hacks, information, and ideas for the platforms long since rendered obsolete by today's standards. It could be said that sceners are the most resourceful hackers in history, since their own hacks must, by design, be integrated with systems that cannot ordinarily be hacked; the Commodores and Apples of yesteryear definately apply here. Sceners are also the most ignored of the entire collective; they are considered by many as to be as obsolete as the machines they work with.
It is now said that the media has picked the Script Kiddies, the Dark Hackers, and the Criminal Hackers as the scapegoats for the name "Hacker." This is because these groups produce more news in a week than True Hackers produce in a year. (Well, sensational news, anyways). It would be a good idea to keep the moniker of "Hacker," just to remain in the hierarchy, but it's time to define our branch as it should be. Okay, we ARE hackers. But in a single word: What kind are we?
--
** Right now I'm leaning towards writing something in perl to put together phonics and see what that can come up with. **
k e-0.1.2.tar.gz
Actually, I have already written one in C++, and have the source code available on my home page.
You can get the source code at:
http://ww w.geocities.com/SiliconValley/Network/5389/wordma
I have written this using the Standard Template library, and GNU glibc/libstd++. Hopefully, it can be compiled on any system.
In any case, my choices for the concept would include Code Caster, and Cybrid.
--
> And you are going dump and discredit all of the
:-)
> millions of dollars and thousands of man years
> that you have sunk into Windows 2000 with some
> secretly-developed, bastardized "MS-Linux" that
> will neither work well nor integrate at all with
> the rest of your products?
> Even in the depths of all of your Slashdot
> induced paranoias are you people really
> willing to buy this?
Yes. I will now explain what is (in my mind, anyways) the greatest Embrace - and - Extend trick ever.
First, let's have possible Microsoft spin of it's "Latest Linux-based product," Which I will call Windows LX.
***
Ladies and Gentlemen, Microsoft Corp. has joined with the Open Source revolution to bring you Windows LX, a combination of the power and stability of the Open-Source Linux platform, with Traditional Microsoft ease-of-use.
This product will be the first in a line of products designed to bring the benefits of internet technology and Open source to Microsoft customers. We will continue the Microsoft tradition of innovation and quality through the integration of Linux into your Windows experience.
Internet Explorer will still be integrated into your system, giving you the fully internet-based experience that you enjoyed with Windows 98 and 2001, and you will soon be able to run legacy Windows and MS-DOS applications through the Microsoft Compatibility Layer, coming soon in a Service Pack update, available free from the Microsoft home-site.
Also, anyone familiar with Linux and UNIX will find that they will be able to run their legacy applications on Microsoft Windows LX with little modification, as Microsoft has developed a series of tools to mimic the archaic UNIX system tools, while providing further integration into Windows LX features.
We at Microsoft are hoping that through this offer, we can provide proof that Microsoft is willing to open up to the community, and continue to innovate, while bringing ease-of-use features to Linux.
***
Scary thought, eh?
Okay, here's the reason that this *CAN* come to pass:
Linux is simply a kernel, a mass of system calls and drivers.
We, as a community, take the GNU tools for granted. This is actually taken far enough to allow compacency which equates Linux with UNIX. While there is nothing wrong with that, that further degrades the concept of GNU tools from the collective memory of the community.
However, this will also reduce the chance of catching a distribution that actually replaces the GNU tools with their own, proprietary offerings in their place.
What Microsoft can do, is take Linux, and integrate modified versions of their Xenix tools into the operating sytem's core layer. Above that, the new xenix-style tools can be remodified to take advantage of the Win32 library, and allow the frame-buffer to take advantage of the DirectX sytem library.
Overlay this with the Internet Explorer system shell, redesigned to further take advantage of the Operating system underneath, add a DOS-compatibility layer as a patch, or possibly a Plus! attachment, and you have a fully-proprietized Linux-based Windows system... only the kernel itself would be open, simply because of the GPL.
Now, the concept is a little hard to swallow, but get this: Microsoft would be in their bounds to do so with full legal backing. This would also provide a defense against the DOJ ("Look, we are now using Linux, which doesn't belong to anyone! We are playing on a level playing field... we DON'T have a monopoly, so you cannot try us anymore!"), and prevent the companies who now use Linux as their spring-board to further compete.
The most frightening thing about this is that Microsoft can then ignore development of the low-level layers of their system. This gives them more time to research "Integration."
Microsoft is not out of the picture, and they are certainly not without options!
Disclaimer:
I am not a Microsoft professional, nor am I part of the IT industry. (yet) These are purely based upon my views, observations, and predictions.
Okay, now... Let me have it!
--