That is some serious data transfering! (does that sound stupid to anyone else?)
Seriously: Will any other hardware be able to keep up with this any time soon? Or is this just a ISP trunk-type device that users won't see for a very long time?
Will this be availible to (for instance) my local ISP, giving better throughput?
I had no idea that Illiad was a "non-techie." That actually makes the strip funnier, I think.
User Friendly is very funny, usually. I recently went through all of the 1998 archives just to re-read them, and get the ones I missed originally. (i have a cake job!!! Woohoo!)
I'm glad the strip is finally getting more public notice, he deserves it.
Like previous pos(t)ers, I want to know why there isn't a way to play mp3's off of a CD. Ok, The hard drive is awesome, and with a little tinkering (say, maybe, an DC power adapter and a stereo out to plug into my car's system) it would truly be the coolest device ever...
My CD-ROM can play audio and read data, right? Why can't my car's disc changer do the same?
Another point: How long will it take to d/l more than 4 GB(!) onto this little device? Overnight?
Do you think it is very likely that the public at large will come to accept the use of encryption on a daily basis? Will the public ever be able to implement an encryption algorithm without know what they are doing (ie. like most computer users in our society)?
Was that a bad link or an amazingly fast/. effect?
Either way, based on the summary, the media just doesn't get geekdom as a whole.
They realize that the IT industry (god, I hate that buzzword) is important, but they have no real knowledge about what is going on down deep. On the kernal level, so to speak.
In a way, this has been discussed before, with the media/movie portrayal of geeks and computers. Most computer geeks are going to see a news story like that and think "Cool, now I will be able to get some really kick-ass stuff to put in/on my boxen!" (or something like that)
The MBA's and media types see the same story and just see the numbers: "x number of dollars start going to support product y, that means it must be a Good Thing, therefore I will go buy/support product y and everyone will think I am cool! Boxen!" (or something like that)
What gets missed is that most of us really don't care who is making the goods or coding the toys, as long as it is better than what we had before. Better games, better hardware, (in this case) a better OS.
End point: Ignore traditional media. Just read Slashdot.
That is a good point, but I think the same can be said about any "new" OS as well. The Linux zealots insist it is best, the Mac zealots insist it is best, a few people insist NT is best. They all have their place. Why determine the philosophical necessity of a new(old) product? Let's just see what we can make it do!
This does seem to be a Good Thing. We have recently seen what free source can do for software, specificly the Doom modifications to kill processes (don't have the link right now...) that was on/. yesterday. Freeing up the code for people to work with will almost invaribly produce new and interesting products.
I have never worked with the amiga OS, but I know a lot of geeks who insist that it was the best OS on the market in it's day. It will be interesting to see if it can be made into a competitive product now that it's strangely ineffective business model has been dismissed.
I know that it isn't the best possible solution to the problem (Linux port of UT), but isn't it better than EVERYTHING else that has come along? Are there any other games due for a simultaneous release to Linux? Are there any games with as large of a built-in user base (ie. geeks that like to shoot at things)? I know here at my shop we waste as much time playing UT on our LAN as we can possibly get away with. It is truly an excelent game. Of course it has flaws, both the Windows and Linux version. But I am eternally grateful that Linux is recieving not just a passing thought of a port, but an actual, full fledged, shrink-wrapped release of a major game. Green Marine, if you read/., thank you. Despite what you see here, we really are apreciative.
I must say thank you for an extremely well written and informative piece. There is an obvious depth of knowledge in the article, though it is still easy to read and follow.
Might I suggest it be required reading for everyone before commenting on stupid patent stories here at/.?
Most of the comments usually display little or no knowledge of existing patent laws and proceedures here in the US, and a moderation of "Hasn't read the FAQ" would be quite handy in such cases.
Here's how it played out in my shop: Guy comes in and wants the latest software on his brand new, helped-him-take-it-out-of-the-box Aptiva yesterday. Put MS office 97 on it, McAfee's virus scanner... Then I started playing around with it, looking at what it shipped with. Cool, 96MB RAM. Oh, look, a CD burner! I looked, and looked, and looked...
There was no software to support a CD burner. At all.
This sounds a lot like more vaporware. Sure, it'll come out eventually. "Released on paper sometime in January" with the chips actually available sometime around two months after that. Now doesn't that strike you as equivalent to "The check is in the mail?" I want one. We all want one. But announceing plans to release something drastically cooler than everything else on the market should require a definitive time frame, especially when using that many "killer" buzzwords.
Athlon killer? Who even has one yet? Where do I get a mother board for an Athlon? I can't believe this was anything but the PR departments intentional release of memos to get noticed and to try to take sales from AMD.
No, I realize that no one is going to fork out the thousands of dollars needed to put up for a conference of this nature.
What I was trying to propose is alternative financing so that a open source show could be open to the public. I think is is fairly obvious that no one person is going to be willing or able to foot the bill.
How about this: Maybe all those vendors should pay something to be able to set up. This is how it works most of the time for other shows, ie gun shows, computer shows, etc.
The talks and lectures, specialized programs targeted toward specific people should be either by invitation only, or cost attendees however much it should be to cover costs.
Why would anyone advocate an absolutely free show? Think before you post.
This reads like a MS press release. I know Paxman is usually a fairly hard-hitting, real question-asking reporter, not some panty-waist wimp. Why is it that there is no useful information in the article? The article makes it sound almost scripted.
Shouldn't all open source conferences be free? I know that it is very expensive to put on shows like this, but chargeing people to come get information about a free, open product seems kind of... unfair? I know the money usually just goes toward expenses, but a free event may well attract users that aren't yet on our open source bandwagon.
We all know that our government is hypocritical. That is why we have the whole checks and balances thing. One branch can go completely of its rocker, and the other two are supposed to reel them in (sorry about the mixed metaphor). I know that a lot of us like to rant and rave about buggy software and silly laws, but who are you railing against?
No one is perfect. Flawed software comes out because no one realized the extent of the problems in testing. Most of the exploits and security holes in software that I have become aware of are due to such arcane circumstances that I can quite easily envision a QA failure. Bad software just means bad QA, not malicious intent to sell patches.
Maybe MS does put out sloppy code on purpose. Maybe CDC is wrong to hack at sloppy code.
Maybe we are wrong to use bad code... How secure is/.? Has anyone tried to hack it?
I bought a Gateway system last year. It was cheap, they financed over the phone, and they mailed it to Japan, where I was living at the time. It is a great little system...
But still.
It was put together with the crappiest OEM parts I have ever heard of. There were corners cut on nearly every modular part inside the thing, from generic RAM to a seriously (non-Linux) flawed integrated video chipset. For what I paid from, I got a good deal, but I have replaced most of the parts in it to get it to perform like I want it.
Do I want a server to do that? No. A server should have the top of the line, state of the art hardware in it, at all times, if possible. Can Gateway do that?
Could this possibly prompt more people to be seriously concerned about their security?
There are security holes in every software product shipped. Well, not every one, but you know what I mean. That a company as big as AOL can succumb to such a huge exploit boogles the mind. Don't they have their own security people?
On the other hand, what would you do with someones AOL password? Go chat with another user's ID?
Hey, I've been there. There are places you can go. In any medium to large city there are going to be 'help desk' positions. It means dealing with a large number of technologically impaired people, but you can do it. While you are there, make friends with the netadmins, or sysadmins, or whatever. Start a conversation, or a debate about something geeky. Pretend to be swayed, come back later with another point.
Above all, keep learning.
When the time comes, you can put everything you know into the current job, and move on. Starting out sucks regardless. Starting out as a clerk that does some computer stuff when the help desk is busy or clueless sucks even more. It can be done, though, it just takes work.
Hermetic - no degree, no schoolin', just hack for fun and profit.
Think real hard! Which scares you more? The NSA hacking into you computer systems? Or maybe the USAF dropping a few dozen 1000 pound bombs near and around your house? Sure they used "cyber-warfare." Hacking doesn't blow shit up!
This actually has a lot more to do with the Jane's article then is first apparent. Consensus on/. was that the article glossed over the important bits of cyber-terrorism. Well, I think that the US military is a lot better at making things explode in third world countries than they are at shutting down the Subway system in downtown Sarejvo.
I certainly hope that our world will progress to the point that cyber-enabled warfare is a possibility. It may end war as we know it.
But I think we should also remeber that Gatling (of the large spinning machine gun fame) and Nobel (father of blowing things up and inventor of TNT) both thought the same thing of their inventions.
If you are dead set against IE, try Opera. It is small, fast and quite unfriendly, but it works. It works extremely well, better than either of the others. The 'hotlist' is a much better implementation of the book marks/favorites crap than the others have done(more of an Explorer feel to it) and the multiple windows is so much better to work with than opening new windows in IE or mozilla. It's just better.
This guy at least has the decency to write what he knows... Reporting. The story, when you get right down to it, is about reporting, and sensationalism. It even appears that he reads/. and determined the RSA-512 thing was a hoax, and then the postings about Jane's. So: He finds out that a rival posted bogus information, finds another way to get truth in writing (publications, at any rate), and lambasts them as well. It really seems that he is simply admiting his own sensationalism by writing the article, just one hack writing about how all the other hacks suck...
Slashdot Mirror
is "wow!"
That is some serious data transfering! (does that sound stupid to anyone else?)
Seriously:
Will any other hardware be able to keep up with this any time soon? Or is this just a ISP trunk-type device that users won't see for a very long time?
Will this be availible to (for instance) my local ISP, giving better throughput?
Weird, wild stuff...
I had no idea that Illiad was a "non-techie." That actually makes the strip funnier, I think.
User Friendly is very funny, usually. I recently went through all of the 1998 archives just to re-read them, and get the ones I missed originally. (i have a cake job!!! Woohoo!)
I'm glad the strip is finally getting more public notice, he deserves it.
Like previous pos(t)ers, I want to know why there isn't a way to play mp3's off of a CD.
Ok, The hard drive is awesome, and with a little tinkering (say, maybe, an DC power adapter and a stereo out to plug into my car's system) it would truly be the coolest device ever...
My CD-ROM can play audio and read data, right?
Why can't my car's disc changer do the same?
Another point: How long will it take to d/l more than 4 GB(!) onto this little device? Overnight?
Do you think it is very likely that the public at large will come to accept the use of encryption on a daily basis? Will the public ever be able to implement an encryption algorithm without know what they are doing (ie. like most computer users in our society)?
That is very cool (no pun intended).
Does anyone out there have any pricing/ordering information yet?
Try a search for "evil software"
Evidently the guys at Stanford have quite a sense of humor.
Would someone please moderate this poor dumb schmuck down?
Was that a bad link or an amazingly fast /. effect?
Either way, based on the summary, the media just doesn't get geekdom as a whole.
They realize that the IT industry (god, I hate that buzzword) is important, but they have no real knowledge about what is going on down deep. On the kernal level, so to speak.
In a way, this has been discussed before, with the media/movie portrayal of geeks and computers. Most computer geeks are going to see a news story like that and think "Cool, now I will be able to get some really kick-ass stuff to put in/on my boxen!" (or something like that)
The MBA's and media types see the same story and just see the numbers: "x number of dollars start going to support product y, that means it must be a Good Thing, therefore I will go buy/support product y and everyone will think I am cool! Boxen!" (or something like that)
What gets missed is that most of us really don't care who is making the goods or coding the toys, as long as it is better than what we had before. Better games, better hardware, (in this case) a better OS.
End point: Ignore traditional media. Just read Slashdot.
That is a good point, but I think the same can be said about any "new" OS as well. The Linux zealots insist it is best, the Mac zealots insist it is best, a few people insist NT is best.
They all have their place.
Why determine the philosophical necessity of a new(old) product?
Let's just see what we can make it do!
This does seem to be a Good Thing. We have recently seen what free source can do for software, specificly the Doom modifications to kill processes (don't have the link right now...) that was on /. yesterday. Freeing up the code for people to work with will almost invaribly produce new and interesting products.
I have never worked with the amiga OS, but I know a lot of geeks who insist that it was the best OS on the market in it's day. It will be interesting to see if it can be made into a competitive product now that it's strangely ineffective business model has been dismissed.
I know that it isn't the best possible solution to the problem (Linux port of UT), but isn't it better than EVERYTHING else that has come along? Are there any other games due for a simultaneous release to Linux? Are there any games with as large of a built-in user base (ie. geeks that like to shoot at things)? /., thank you. Despite what you see here, we really are apreciative.
I know here at my shop we waste as much time playing UT on our LAN as we can possibly get away with. It is truly an excelent game.
Of course it has flaws, both the Windows and Linux version. But I am eternally grateful that Linux is recieving not just a passing thought of a port, but an actual, full fledged, shrink-wrapped release of a major game.
Green Marine, if you read
I must say thank you for an extremely well written and informative piece.
/.?
There is an obvious depth of knowledge in the article, though it is still easy to read and follow.
Might I suggest it be required reading for everyone before commenting on stupid patent stories here at
Most of the comments usually display little or no knowledge of existing patent laws and proceedures here in the US, and a moderation of "Hasn't read the FAQ" would be quite handy in such cases.
Here's how it played out in my shop:
Guy comes in and wants the latest software on his brand new, helped-him-take-it-out-of-the-box Aptiva yesterday. Put MS office 97 on it, McAfee's virus scanner... Then I started playing around with it, looking at what it shipped with. Cool, 96MB RAM. Oh, look, a CD burner! I looked, and looked, and looked...
There was no software to support a CD burner. At all.
IBM is pulling out? I'm really not surprised.
This sounds a lot like more vaporware.
Sure, it'll come out eventually.
"Released on paper sometime in January" with the chips actually available sometime around two months after that. Now doesn't that strike you as equivalent to "The check is in the mail?"
I want one. We all want one. But announceing plans to release something drastically cooler than everything else on the market should require a definitive time frame, especially when using that many "killer" buzzwords.
Athlon killer? Who even has one yet? Where do I get a mother board for an Athlon?
I can't believe this was anything but the PR departments intentional release of memos to get noticed and to try to take sales from AMD.
No, I realize that no one is going to fork out the thousands of dollars needed to put up for a conference of this nature.
What I was trying to propose is alternative financing so that a open source show could be open to the public. I think is is fairly obvious that no one person is going to be willing or able to foot the bill.
How about this: Maybe all those vendors should pay something to be able to set up.
This is how it works most of the time for other shows, ie gun shows, computer shows, etc.
The talks and lectures, specialized programs targeted toward specific people should be either by invitation only, or cost attendees however much it should be to cover costs.
Why would anyone advocate an absolutely free show?
Think before you post.
This reads like a MS press release. I know Paxman is usually a fairly hard-hitting, real question-asking reporter, not some panty-waist wimp. Why is it that there is no useful information in the article?
The article makes it sound almost scripted.
Shouldn't all open source conferences be free?
I know that it is very expensive to put on shows like this, but chargeing people to come get information about a free, open product seems kind of... unfair?
I know the money usually just goes toward expenses, but a free event may well attract users that aren't yet on our open source bandwagon.
Hypocrisy is the greatest luxury.
/.?
We all know that our government is hypocritical. That is why we have the whole checks and balances thing. One branch can go completely of its rocker, and the other two are supposed to reel them in (sorry about the mixed metaphor). I know that a lot of us like to rant and rave about buggy software and silly laws, but who are you railing against?
No one is perfect. Flawed software comes out because no one realized the extent of the problems in testing. Most of the exploits and security holes in software that I have become aware of are due to such arcane circumstances that I can quite easily envision a QA failure. Bad software just means bad QA, not malicious intent to sell patches.
Maybe MS does put out sloppy code on purpose.
Maybe CDC is wrong to hack at sloppy code.
Maybe we are wrong to use bad code...
How secure is
Has anyone tried to hack it?
I bought a Gateway system last year. It was cheap, they financed over the phone, and they mailed it to Japan, where I was living at the time. It is a great little system...
But still.
It was put together with the crappiest OEM parts I have ever heard of. There were corners cut on nearly every modular part inside the thing, from generic RAM to a seriously (non-Linux) flawed integrated video chipset. For what I paid from, I got a good deal, but I have replaced most of the parts in it to get it to perform like I want it.
Do I want a server to do that? No.
A server should have the top of the line, state of the art hardware in it, at all times, if possible.
Can Gateway do that?
Could this possibly prompt more people to be seriously concerned about their security?
There are security holes in every software product shipped. Well, not every one, but you know what I mean. That a company as big as AOL can succumb to such a huge exploit boogles the mind. Don't they have their own security people?
On the other hand, what would you do with someones AOL password? Go chat with another user's ID?
Hey, I've been there.
There are places you can go. In any medium to large city there are going to be 'help desk' positions. It means dealing with a large number of technologically impaired people, but you can do it.
While you are there, make friends with the netadmins, or sysadmins, or whatever. Start a conversation, or a debate about something geeky. Pretend to be swayed, come back later with another point.
Above all, keep learning.
When the time comes, you can put everything you know into the current job, and move on.
Starting out sucks regardless. Starting out as a clerk that does some computer stuff when the help desk is busy or clueless sucks even more. It can be done, though, it just takes work.
Hermetic - no degree, no schoolin', just hack for fun and profit.
Sorry, that is right. My rant got away from me.
Think real hard! Which scares you more? The NSA hacking into you computer systems? Or maybe the USAF dropping a few dozen 1000 pound bombs near and around your house?
/. was that the article glossed over the important bits of cyber-terrorism. Well, I think that the US military is a lot better at making things explode in third world countries than they are at shutting down the Subway system in downtown Sarejvo.
Sure they used "cyber-warfare." Hacking doesn't blow shit up!
This actually has a lot more to do with the Jane's article then is first apparent. Consensus on
I certainly hope that our world will progress to the point that cyber-enabled warfare is a possibility. It may end war as we know it.
But I think we should also remeber that Gatling (of the large spinning machine gun fame) and Nobel (father of blowing things up and inventor of TNT) both thought the same thing of their inventions.
If you are dead set against IE, try Opera. It is small, fast and quite unfriendly, but it works. It works extremely well, better than either of the others.
The 'hotlist' is a much better implementation of the book marks/favorites crap than the others have done(more of an Explorer feel to it) and the multiple windows is so much better to work with than opening new windows in IE or mozilla.
It's just better.
Sorry, I really like it.
This guy at least has the decency to write what he knows... Reporting. /. and determined the RSA-512 thing was a hoax, and then the postings about Jane's.
The story, when you get right down to it, is about reporting, and sensationalism.
It even appears that he reads
So: He finds out that a rival posted bogus information, finds another way to get truth in writing (publications, at any rate), and lambasts them as well.
It really seems that he is simply admiting his own sensationalism by writing the article, just one hack writing about how all the other hacks suck...