Outside of being completely amused by your rantings at others for criticizing your awful posting style, I am highly amused that you have honestly made the absolute worst mistake an IT security professional can make: believing that you have found a solution that someone can't break. I'm glad you think you are clever, and I encourage you to keep a healthy level of confidence. However, your solution isn't exactly flawless, and rather than showing healthy confidence, you're over posting, becoming belligerent toward others, and generally being a prick.
Mod me down for honesty, I won't care.
On the topic of securing your network, everyone alive knows that this is the only way to do it with certainty:
Very true. In order to increase chip yields, it's acceptable for one of the SPEs in each of the Cell chips in a PS3 to be non-functional, which is why one is always reserved for the OS. I'll get more performance out of the Cell cards, which are made to a higher standard (and are PowerCell 8xi which is nice). You're right too: I am in it for the long haul. When I buy a machine, I tend to keep it until it can no longer serve as my primary machine, and then relegate it to something more suited for it just to keep it around. I try to cut back on my e-waste.
Having worked for IBM a few times, I've had the opportunity of using a wide variety of their machines (from workstations to z10 mainframes and everything in between). I do like the quality of their hardware, and that's likely the route I'll go. I've had the pleasure of bogging down a 6.4 teraflops QS22 Bladecenter set up. It took considerable effort and was totally unnecessary, but was nonetheless enjoyable. I won't be investing THAT much money in hardware, but I know that I'll be satisfied with what I end up with if I go with a POWER workstation and CELL cards. Now if only I could bring myself to shell out the money on the GigaAcell 180s, I'd be in set for anything I'd ever want to really use it for.
All the points you bring to the table are indeed valid. I'll be fine away from x86 in terms of the code I run (it's all POSIX and I've used it all on POWER before). If the PS3 idea doesn't work out for me (and I may decide to do this anyway) I'll just put up the money for an IBM workstation that uses POWER architecture and install CELL cards. That might be a better bet anyway, especially for the reasons you mentioned regarding Sony. I have a feeling that Big Blue will be around for a while to come, and I know they'll keep making POWER products for the foreseeable future.
I do have personal hatred for x86 that runs pretty deep. There's not a single bit of code that I ever run that requires it, so I can safely move away from it. The Cell Cards are nice, but I can get more pervasive use out of the Cell architecture if I go with the PS3 set up. It's easier to do GCC flags for an all Cell set up instead and get good use out of it for everything I happen to run (so long as I can "hide the latency" from the applications) rather than having to patch things together to make good use of the cards. Plus, my latency will be lower anyway than having to rely on transfer along the expansion card bus. I really just want to build a neat little toy. You should check out the offerings from Fixstars Solutions http://us.fixstars.com/ for their PS3 clusters. A quick Google search should turn up some good results on what they've been used for.
Honestly, I just want to do what everyone in the industry should have done at least a decade ago (if not more) and wave goodbye to the x86.
No problem. I'm still working through trying to get what I actually mean across in a single post. Hopefully I'll be able to correct this issue on my end soon.
I was under the assumption, after having worked extensively compiling for the architecture (QS21 and QS22 blades) that the Power Processing Element that serves as the general purpose CPU (which utilizes the Synergistic Processing Elements) did, in fact, have a 128-bit Altivec register set.
All of the code I complied (both written by me or by others) that used the vector keyword made it through the GCC unscathed and actually functioned. I also recall seeing it specifically spelled out in the engineering manual as being there.
I believe you misread my post entirely. We were attempting to clarify what Apple defines as a "full copy" and an "upgrade copy". I wasn't saying anything against the way they do it. I like how they handle their installations in terms of not having two distinct versions, not requiring a previous installation on the hard disk, and not making the user keep track of product keys.
Further, I wasn't really interpreting it to mean that I can't do what the license says I can't do. Largely, I tend to do with it what I actually can do with it. Since I don't sell it as a product like Psystar did, that's all I really have to worry about.
Though I will admit that it is not a grilled cheese sandwich, I do have a friend who has (among other tattoos) a TV dinner tattooed on his forearm. It's right there in full color, complete with a serving of chicken, mashed potatoes, and, if I recall correctly, green peas. Strangely enough, it has religious significance.
First off is the price:They are down to $299 each, so I can make a small cluster of them for about what I'd usually spend on a PC when starting from scratch.
As to what I would be using it for: tinkering with open source software, using it to demonstrate novel concepts and different architectures to my high school Computer Science students, be more effective at helping my friends model physics simulations (actual physics, not game physics), mucking about with cryptography (key breaking and such for satisfying my academic curiosity), and a host of other computationally intensive, but somewhat meaningless things that I typically get into. It also wouldn't hurt to leverage the Altivec instruction set on a cluster of them running Cinelerra and letting my friends who do a lot of video editing use it as a rendering platform.
For the things I'd like to use it for, I'd be hard pressed to find commodity x86 hardware that could match the price and the performance (so long as I get it set up the way I want it).
I still admit, first and foremost, that from a business perspective, Psystar was wrong. As to the Macintosh: I've had scenarios where I've installed on a blank drive using the disk that came with it (because the hard disk died) or when the copy of Mac OS that came installed on it had been completely removed to install Linux, and Mac OS was being put back on (with no existing copy to "upgrade" from). I'm really not sure how to look at it in terms of "full install" vs "upgrade only". At least it used to be easy with Microsoft OSes back in the day (not sure now, I don't use their products and haven't for a while). You had clearly labeled "upgrade" versions that wouldn't install on a clean disk without a prior supported OS installed, and you had full versions that would do anything you wanted. Again, I'm not really sure how to interpret Apple-speak in this case.
PowerPC chips were/are quite well suited for the desktop realm as well as the server and workstation realm. Altivec is quite a bit better than what has been cobbled together by Intel and the gang to pass off for SIMD instruction sets. When leveraged properly, that specialty chip it required was a superior offering.
I think you hit the nail on the head when you look at it from a strictly business standpoint. We've gotten into a situation where it's more important to rate a product as being better for the company than better for the consumer. I used to hope that Apple would be a way to finally kill the decrepit x86 architecture, but those hopes were dashed by profit-motivated moves. I can't really say that that's wrong, since a business has to do something to survive. I just know that somehow, in the fight, I as the consumer, sort of lost.
I used to love Apple hardware, because it was Apple hardware (in terms of the desktop market). Now there is no "Apple hardware": only everyone else's hardware with an apple etched into it and nice curves. I'm perfectly fine without their operating system, so buying their hardware these days is like going after the same ugly x86 girlfriend I want to dump, except now she has a boob job and wears nicer clothes.
I'm honestly thinking of solving my problem by purchasing a PS3 (or a few to cluster) and rolling out a custom Gentoo build for them. That way, I get my Altivec, my basic POWER architecture, and the OS I want in the end.
Okay, I'm having trouble with the Apple definitions of "full copy" and "upgrade". As stated previously, I can certainly take any one of their disks that they sell currently and install it on one of their machines that is supported by it, even if there is no pre-existing copy of Mac OS to upgrade from. To me, that seems as if it would be a "full copy" rather than an "upgrade" copy. Please, correct me if my logic is flawed.
As to installing Snow Leopard on an original iMac: that architecture is no longer supported, so of course it won't install. That's not a question of a permissible upgrade, but rather one of lack of hardware support.
I do agree with you, believe it or not. I feel that my previous post might have been misinterpreted a bit. I do not argue that the terms of the license should be followed, regardless of the license being used. That is the letter of the law. Other companies should obey this.
What I was arguing was from a purely ideological standpoint, stating my platform for disagreement for those particular license clauses such as the one we are discussing.
Perhaps I should include clauses differentiating between ideological statements and advocacy statements. Perhaps this will clear things up in the future.
To tell you the truth, I'm not entirely sure about this. Perhaps it is worded that way because they include migration tools that are different for each of those versions to upgrade to Snow Leopard.
I do know that you can use the disk to install to a hard drive that doesn't have any Apple OS installed, such as a blank drive, or a Mac that is running Linux (I have done this with my Mac that was running Linux). For some reason that seems like a full install disk rather than a pure upgrade, which in my estimation would require a compatible OS to upgrade from. In terms of licensing, I am not sure though. This is a good question.
Having worked previously in IBM's AIX development labs and Linux Technology Center, I can say you are correct that the big-iron UNIX world does work that way. It also happens that their tying occurs on hardware platforms that are quite different from those you can buy off the shelf from any PC parts vendor. It's uncommon to find someone with POWER hardware to run AIX on at home. The same applies with PA-RISC hardware to run HP-UX on (older versions anyway).
Apple made the decision to dress up generic PC hardware and plunk their OS on it rather than staying with hardware that set them apart from their competitors and made tying more acceptable. The only thing that truly separates a Mac from a generic PC these days is the software it runs. Companies like Psystar showed that by using generic PC hardware to run Apple's product. If Apple wants to be a hardware vendor, that is fine. They just need to choose what their product actually is.
On the note of big-iron UNIX tying, I did get the chance to play on several PowerPC Macs that were running AIX in the development labs. Even the big-iron stuff runs on hardware that will run it.
I'm not entirely sure why the previous post was tagged as "Flamebait". The author brings up a valid point in my opinion. You can buy a copy of Apple's OS independent of its hardware. It's not like it only ships pre-installed on Apple machines. Software is a set of instruction to control the state of a machine you have already purchased. I won't get into my opinions on whether you should be able to sell me something that my machine can already do. However, if I purchase a machine that can process instructions which are also purchased for said machine, I should be able to use them.
Flamebait shouldn't be used as a moderation option for legitimate opinions that you don't happen to hold yourself.
I'd like to second this. I'd also like to point out that this applies to security as it relates to anything (cloud computing, Linux, apache, etc). Security is not a product. Security is a process. It is incumbent on administrators and engineers to ensure that they are aware of what they are doing with their technology, and what sort of implications it may have.
It does little good to build an impenetrable vault and leave the door open all the time.
Well, you certainly live up to your name as the bad analogy guy, at least in my personal opinion. Large, damaging vehicles pay a tax because they cause damage that creates a hazard for other people. Something that can represent material danger. They are not taxed because they cause traffic jams and make you late to work. They aren't taxed because they spoil your wonderful view of the highway, or because they inconvenience you when you want to visit grandma or grab a bagel.
They pay the same tax, whether we all drive constantly and have to deal with their damage, or if we rarely drive at all. It's not really dependent on anyone else. Furthermore, they have as much access as they need to said roadways, inhibited only in ways that are in place for the material safety of others. Your analogy greatly confuses the real issues behind the two scenarios.
I apologize, not only for myself, but for all of those who make maximum use of a resource we are paying for. A resource that allows us to have unprecedented access to knowledge, media, and connections with our fellow human beings. I apologize to all of those who bear the inconvenience of purchasing fewer resources and expecting either too much of them, or exclusive rights to them just for being "part of the club". It's analogous to thinking you should have the roadway all to yourself so you can drive your Pinto 50 million miles per hour and rarely pay for gas. Most of all, I would like to apologize to the telecommunications providers of the world for their own inability to meet the demands of their consumers, for whatever reasons that may arise from.
All resources are finite. That's a simple fact that most people never take account of, save the truly poor. I grew up that way, and I'm actually rather glad for the perspective it provides me on occasion. However, I find it truly lamentable that there is so much vehemence in the argument over net neutrality, and bandwidth as a finite resource, when there are other, infinitely more pressing matters of resource consumption we should be turning our collective frustrations toward. Despite its inarguable utility, the internet is a commodity, and it speaks to the selfish nature of our species to direct so much energy toward fighting for control of it, rather than addressing what are decidedly more pressing issues.
With all of that said, I believe I might have earned my first unfavorable mod in the history of my account.
That divide by zero could mean undefined and could be infinity. This leads me to the startling conclusion that LEDs don't actually produce light, but actually consume darkness. There is a strange event-horizon inside of LEDs that prevents us from observing what's going on inside. On the inside, I postulate that the mechanism inside of the LEDs let's virtual pairs of "no-tons" and "anti-no-tons" form, orbit, collide, and destroy one another. This releases the occasional photon. There is virtually no heat from this, since no-tons, by nature, are incredibly low energy particles. This must happen at a tremendous rate for the "light output" they give. I am both amazed and slightly afraid of LEDs now that I know how they work. I only hope the manufacturers continue using this awesome ability for good....Silly article typos....
Slashdot Mirror
Outside of being completely amused by your rantings at others for criticizing your awful posting style, I am highly amused that you have honestly made the absolute worst mistake an IT security professional can make: believing that you have found a solution that someone can't break. I'm glad you think you are clever, and I encourage you to keep a healthy level of confidence. However, your solution isn't exactly flawless, and rather than showing healthy confidence, you're over posting, becoming belligerent toward others, and generally being a prick.
Mod me down for honesty, I won't care.
On the topic of securing your network, everyone alive knows that this is the only way to do it with certainty:
http://www.thirdeyeconcept.com/demotivationals/tec66_demotivational.jpg
It would look exactly like this: http://www.commujism.com/
I believe they tried that once. If I recall correctly, we term that the Dark Ages.
I concede defeat to you, sir. Well, played. Well played indeed.
Given how bloated Emacs is, you're more likely to be able to get Firefox for Emacs.
Emacs is a wonderful operating system. All it lacks is a decent text editor.
Very true. In order to increase chip yields, it's acceptable for one of the SPEs in each of the Cell chips in a PS3 to be non-functional, which is why one is always reserved for the OS. I'll get more performance out of the Cell cards, which are made to a higher standard (and are PowerCell 8xi which is nice). You're right too: I am in it for the long haul. When I buy a machine, I tend to keep it until it can no longer serve as my primary machine, and then relegate it to something more suited for it just to keep it around. I try to cut back on my e-waste.
Having worked for IBM a few times, I've had the opportunity of using a wide variety of their machines (from workstations to z10 mainframes and everything in between). I do like the quality of their hardware, and that's likely the route I'll go. I've had the pleasure of bogging down a 6.4 teraflops QS22 Bladecenter set up. It took considerable effort and was totally unnecessary, but was nonetheless enjoyable. I won't be investing THAT much money in hardware, but I know that I'll be satisfied with what I end up with if I go with a POWER workstation and CELL cards. Now if only I could bring myself to shell out the money on the GigaAcell 180s, I'd be in set for anything I'd ever want to really use it for.
All the points you bring to the table are indeed valid. I'll be fine away from x86 in terms of the code I run (it's all POSIX and I've used it all on POWER before). If the PS3 idea doesn't work out for me (and I may decide to do this anyway) I'll just put up the money for an IBM workstation that uses POWER architecture and install CELL cards. That might be a better bet anyway, especially for the reasons you mentioned regarding Sony. I have a feeling that Big Blue will be around for a while to come, and I know they'll keep making POWER products for the foreseeable future.
I do have personal hatred for x86 that runs pretty deep. There's not a single bit of code that I ever run that requires it, so I can safely move away from it. The Cell Cards are nice, but I can get more pervasive use out of the Cell architecture if I go with the PS3 set up. It's easier to do GCC flags for an all Cell set up instead and get good use out of it for everything I happen to run (so long as I can "hide the latency" from the applications) rather than having to patch things together to make good use of the cards. Plus, my latency will be lower anyway than having to rely on transfer along the expansion card bus. I really just want to build a neat little toy. You should check out the offerings from Fixstars Solutions http://us.fixstars.com/ for their PS3 clusters. A quick Google search should turn up some good results on what they've been used for.
Honestly, I just want to do what everyone in the industry should have done at least a decade ago (if not more) and wave goodbye to the x86.
No problem. I'm still working through trying to get what I actually mean across in a single post. Hopefully I'll be able to correct this issue on my end soon.
I was under the assumption, after having worked extensively compiling for the architecture (QS21 and QS22 blades) that the Power Processing Element that serves as the general purpose CPU (which utilizes the Synergistic Processing Elements) did, in fact, have a 128-bit Altivec register set.
All of the code I complied (both written by me or by others) that used the vector keyword made it through the GCC unscathed and actually functioned. I also recall seeing it specifically spelled out in the engineering manual as being there.
Oh, wait, I have RTFM. Have you?
I believe you misread my post entirely. We were attempting to clarify what Apple defines as a "full copy" and an "upgrade copy". I wasn't saying anything against the way they do it. I like how they handle their installations in terms of not having two distinct versions, not requiring a previous installation on the hard disk, and not making the user keep track of product keys.
Further, I wasn't really interpreting it to mean that I can't do what the license says I can't do. Largely, I tend to do with it what I actually can do with it. Since I don't sell it as a product like Psystar did, that's all I really have to worry about.
Though I will admit that it is not a grilled cheese sandwich, I do have a friend who has (among other tattoos) a TV dinner tattooed on his forearm. It's right there in full color, complete with a serving of chicken, mashed potatoes, and, if I recall correctly, green peas. Strangely enough, it has religious significance.
Good question, which I'll answer.
First off is the price:They are down to $299 each, so I can make a small cluster of them for about what I'd usually spend on a PC when starting from scratch.
As to what I would be using it for: tinkering with open source software, using it to demonstrate novel concepts and different architectures to my high school Computer Science students, be more effective at helping my friends model physics simulations (actual physics, not game physics), mucking about with cryptography (key breaking and such for satisfying my academic curiosity), and a host of other computationally intensive, but somewhat meaningless things that I typically get into. It also wouldn't hurt to leverage the Altivec instruction set on a cluster of them running Cinelerra and letting my friends who do a lot of video editing use it as a rendering platform.
For the things I'd like to use it for, I'd be hard pressed to find commodity x86 hardware that could match the price and the performance (so long as I get it set up the way I want it).
Thank you. That actually served to clear up the Apple definition of "upgrade license". I understand now.
I still admit, first and foremost, that from a business perspective, Psystar was wrong. As to the Macintosh: I've had scenarios where I've installed on a blank drive using the disk that came with it (because the hard disk died) or when the copy of Mac OS that came installed on it had been completely removed to install Linux, and Mac OS was being put back on (with no existing copy to "upgrade" from). I'm really not sure how to look at it in terms of "full install" vs "upgrade only". At least it used to be easy with Microsoft OSes back in the day (not sure now, I don't use their products and haven't for a while). You had clearly labeled "upgrade" versions that wouldn't install on a clean disk without a prior supported OS installed, and you had full versions that would do anything you wanted. Again, I'm not really sure how to interpret Apple-speak in this case.
PowerPC chips were/are quite well suited for the desktop realm as well as the server and workstation realm. Altivec is quite a bit better than what has been cobbled together by Intel and the gang to pass off for SIMD instruction sets. When leveraged properly, that specialty chip it required was a superior offering.
I think you hit the nail on the head when you look at it from a strictly business standpoint. We've gotten into a situation where it's more important to rate a product as being better for the company than better for the consumer. I used to hope that Apple would be a way to finally kill the decrepit x86 architecture, but those hopes were dashed by profit-motivated moves. I can't really say that that's wrong, since a business has to do something to survive. I just know that somehow, in the fight, I as the consumer, sort of lost.
I used to love Apple hardware, because it was Apple hardware (in terms of the desktop market). Now there is no "Apple hardware": only everyone else's hardware with an apple etched into it and nice curves. I'm perfectly fine without their operating system, so buying their hardware these days is like going after the same ugly x86 girlfriend I want to dump, except now she has a boob job and wears nicer clothes.
I'm honestly thinking of solving my problem by purchasing a PS3 (or a few to cluster) and rolling out a custom Gentoo build for them. That way, I get my Altivec, my basic POWER architecture, and the OS I want in the end.
Okay, I'm having trouble with the Apple definitions of "full copy" and "upgrade". As stated previously, I can certainly take any one of their disks that they sell currently and install it on one of their machines that is supported by it, even if there is no pre-existing copy of Mac OS to upgrade from. To me, that seems as if it would be a "full copy" rather than an "upgrade" copy. Please, correct me if my logic is flawed.
As to installing Snow Leopard on an original iMac: that architecture is no longer supported, so of course it won't install. That's not a question of a permissible upgrade, but rather one of lack of hardware support.
I do agree with you, believe it or not. I feel that my previous post might have been misinterpreted a bit. I do not argue that the terms of the license should be followed, regardless of the license being used. That is the letter of the law. Other companies should obey this.
What I was arguing was from a purely ideological standpoint, stating my platform for disagreement for those particular license clauses such as the one we are discussing.
Perhaps I should include clauses differentiating between ideological statements and advocacy statements. Perhaps this will clear things up in the future.
To tell you the truth, I'm not entirely sure about this. Perhaps it is worded that way because they include migration tools that are different for each of those versions to upgrade to Snow Leopard.
I do know that you can use the disk to install to a hard drive that doesn't have any Apple OS installed, such as a blank drive, or a Mac that is running Linux (I have done this with my Mac that was running Linux). For some reason that seems like a full install disk rather than a pure upgrade, which in my estimation would require a compatible OS to upgrade from. In terms of licensing, I am not sure though. This is a good question.
Having worked previously in IBM's AIX development labs and Linux Technology Center, I can say you are correct that the big-iron UNIX world does work that way. It also happens that their tying occurs on hardware platforms that are quite different from those you can buy off the shelf from any PC parts vendor. It's uncommon to find someone with POWER hardware to run AIX on at home. The same applies with PA-RISC hardware to run HP-UX on (older versions anyway).
Apple made the decision to dress up generic PC hardware and plunk their OS on it rather than staying with hardware that set them apart from their competitors and made tying more acceptable. The only thing that truly separates a Mac from a generic PC these days is the software it runs. Companies like Psystar showed that by using generic PC hardware to run Apple's product. If Apple wants to be a hardware vendor, that is fine. They just need to choose what their product actually is.
On the note of big-iron UNIX tying, I did get the chance to play on several PowerPC Macs that were running AIX in the development labs. Even the big-iron stuff runs on hardware that will run it.
I'm not entirely sure why the previous post was tagged as "Flamebait". The author brings up a valid point in my opinion. You can buy a copy of Apple's OS independent of its hardware. It's not like it only ships pre-installed on Apple machines. Software is a set of instruction to control the state of a machine you have already purchased. I won't get into my opinions on whether you should be able to sell me something that my machine can already do. However, if I purchase a machine that can process instructions which are also purchased for said machine, I should be able to use them.
Flamebait shouldn't be used as a moderation option for legitimate opinions that you don't happen to hold yourself.
I'd like to second this. I'd also like to point out that this applies to security as it relates to anything (cloud computing, Linux, apache, etc). Security is not a product. Security is a process. It is incumbent on administrators and engineers to ensure that they are aware of what they are doing with their technology, and what sort of implications it may have.
It does little good to build an impenetrable vault and leave the door open all the time.
Not at all regarding the article or the discussion, but I just have to say: Nice Emiliano Zapata quote in your sig.
Well, you certainly live up to your name as the bad analogy guy, at least in my personal opinion. Large, damaging vehicles pay a tax because they cause damage that creates a hazard for other people. Something that can represent material danger. They are not taxed because they cause traffic jams and make you late to work. They aren't taxed because they spoil your wonderful view of the highway, or because they inconvenience you when you want to visit grandma or grab a bagel.
They pay the same tax, whether we all drive constantly and have to deal with their damage, or if we rarely drive at all. It's not really dependent on anyone else. Furthermore, they have as much access as they need to said roadways, inhibited only in ways that are in place for the material safety of others. Your analogy greatly confuses the real issues behind the two scenarios.
I apologize, not only for myself, but for all of those who make maximum use of a resource we are paying for. A resource that allows us to have unprecedented access to knowledge, media, and connections with our fellow human beings. I apologize to all of those who bear the inconvenience of purchasing fewer resources and expecting either too much of them, or exclusive rights to them just for being "part of the club". It's analogous to thinking you should have the roadway all to yourself so you can drive your Pinto 50 million miles per hour and rarely pay for gas. Most of all, I would like to apologize to the telecommunications providers of the world for their own inability to meet the demands of their consumers, for whatever reasons that may arise from.
All resources are finite. That's a simple fact that most people never take account of, save the truly poor. I grew up that way, and I'm actually rather glad for the perspective it provides me on occasion. However, I find it truly lamentable that there is so much vehemence in the argument over net neutrality, and bandwidth as a finite resource, when there are other, infinitely more pressing matters of resource consumption we should be turning our collective frustrations toward. Despite its inarguable utility, the internet is a commodity, and it speaks to the selfish nature of our species to direct so much energy toward fighting for control of it, rather than addressing what are decidedly more pressing issues.
With all of that said, I believe I might have earned my first unfavorable mod in the history of my account.
That divide by zero could mean undefined and could be infinity. This leads me to the startling conclusion that LEDs don't actually produce light, but actually consume darkness. There is a strange event-horizon inside of LEDs that prevents us from observing what's going on inside. On the inside, I postulate that the mechanism inside of the LEDs let's virtual pairs of "no-tons" and "anti-no-tons" form, orbit, collide, and destroy one another. This releases the occasional photon. There is virtually no heat from this, since no-tons, by nature, are incredibly low energy particles. This must happen at a tremendous rate for the "light output" they give. I am both amazed and slightly afraid of LEDs now that I know how they work. I only hope the manufacturers continue using this awesome ability for good. ...Silly article typos....