Does anyone know how much this costs?
on
QNX OS on a floppy
·
· Score: 2
Not the demo, the development kit? Seriously...this demo is worthless because (last time I check it) you could only play some silly Java puzzle game since that was the only webpage on the server. You also had to have pretty standard hardware (3Com NIC, etc).
Now, if I could modify this sub 1.5MB wonder to include the ONE driver for the hardware part I really need...and have it serve up a single webpage with links to my primary websites...then I would think this is very very cool indeed.
Imagine the next time a user's system isn't working: he or she boot this preconfigured floppy (which has the exact drivers needed for that system), which then connect to a server, uploads the data directory, pulls down a new image of WinNT or whatever, reloads the data and voila! The user has fixed his or her own system and I didn't even have to know about it.
This would also be terrific for web-based training programs...a user could pop in a "C++" disk that would be preconfigured to take them to the C++ training program on a CBT server.
So how much is it gonna cost me to be able to develop this kinda diskette...or am I only going to be able to use the QNX operating system on embedded devices?
Um, did you miss the POINT of Jurassic Park? Given the choice...I'd rather have a zillion-polygon, curved-surface, bump-mapped, dynamically lit dinosaur in my virtual reality goggles than a REAL dinosaur standing on what was once my body but is not a bit of squishy pulp between its toes.
You also sound a big like Kahn from the original Star Trek episode "improve a machine and you gain ten times...improve man and you gain a thousand fold". It may be true but it is a LOT easier to control computers than living organisms.
Before some wise guy spouts off about artificial intelligence, let me just say that anyone who thinks AI lifeforms (if they ever do exist) will not have some hard-wire kill switch like Data then you are completely nuts.
Remember...if it's smart enough to pass the Turing Test it's smart enough to know the answer to "How do I kill you?"
Routers are designed to do one thing (series of things) and to do them fast and well with little overhead. As you add more and more "functionality", the device becomes more and more of a server that routes, and resource costs become more intensive.
I disagree. First of all, I think a simple comparison of an incoming packet to a previously stored packet in a buffer somewhere is not really a significant overhead. It doesn't need to check every single packet (since odds are there will be identical ones under legitamate usage) but if some kiddie tries "ping a zillion times with 32000 bytes of data as fast as possible" surely some router should be smart enough to say "uh, no" if that is it's owners wish. Operating systems don't enforce any limits on the quality and quantity of data they send, therefore I say that it is the job of the router to make that determination. If there is a valid use for "ping a zillion times with 32000 bytes of data as fast as possible" then let it find some other route, because I don't want to lose my bandwidth because of it.
Second of all...even if there is overhead, it's only price. So you have to pay for a 100Mbit router to get 10Mbit performance...costs always go down over time and the difference is that you may only have 10Mbit worth of actual data after you are able to block out abusing users absorbing data with meaningless attacks.
I've seen water valves where there is a object set perpendicular to the flow of water in the value. Water rushing over the object decreases the pressure over it, causing the object to rise and block part of the flow. Thus, a slow, steady stream can pass through but sudden spikes of high pressure will be bouced back as the value slams shut on it. Once the pressure has reduced, the flow continues as normal. Also a good comparision, I guess, would be surge suppressors.
What's my point with those two comparisons? In both cases the control is done at a VERY low level. Similarly, since there has to be a set bit format for a valid IP packet, I fail to see why it would take serious overhead to tabulate what source is sending the most packets per second and drop packets from excessively high connections so that upstream bandwidth is shared equally and abusive connections slow to a crawl.
If I understand correctly, it's not just the target server that loses in a DoS situation...it's every router along the way. Therefore I think it would be an incentive for people to pony up the resource cost so that abusers would have to route their traffic somewhere else...no?
If this ever will be used, "reverse" DoS attacks will be rampant -- it will be enough to pretend that victim's address is trying to do something "bad"
Perhaps you misunderstand...how would this be possible since, even if you spoof an IP address, the connection still has to be received and forwarded by the router attached to the REAL address?
I'm suggesting the problem needs to be attacked well below the application layer. The data should not be processed, it should simply be compared to other data in some kinda of buffer.
IE...a single connection, like FTP, would generate a huge amount of traffic, but it would all be unique (it's safe to say no one would be downloading the same file over and over 100 times a minute). Therefore, if the router buffered the traffic, there would be no match between packets and the stream would continue.
But...multiple connection (real or spoofed, valid or incomplete) would also generate a huge amount of traffic...but there would be an obvious pattern. The router would see the same size packets with the same destination many times in a row and then simply refuse to route traffic for that REAL connection. Therefore, no routers upstream would be affected and the only thing the attacker would be DoSing is his own connection.
It's like...comparing the waveforms of a sound file and an EKG. You can easily spot the repeating pattern in an EKG by buffering just a few miliseconds. And, if the attacker enlarges the repeating portion to escape detection, he is also decreasing the number of connections per second...down to the point where a decently fast server can handle them.
IT would kill programs like GetRight with rely on hammering to get their target information AS SOON AS POSSIBLE, but really...this is software we can live without.
...invent some router or switch that can be programmed with some kinda of connection login?
IE...wouldn't DoS attacks become impossible if routers could be programmed with somethink like "if number of packets from A to B on port X > Y, drop connection A". Sorta like how most IRC servers have flood protection, where if you try to flood the IRC server with information requests (in an attempt to split that server from the network), the server simply disconnects you. Or how mail servers that detect you are sending "too much mail" can drop your connection until they can see if you are a potential spammer"
The technology clearly exists to cap transfer rate (as @Home does with my connection) so why can't it simply have a quote assigned to abused ports like what ping, tracert, NetBios, and the various trojans use?
Blocking the traffic at the endpoint slows down every connection along the way. Internet service providers who don't want to support this kind of traffic should be able to automatically disconnect you if are being abusive. It might also be possible to monitor WHAT is being sent (multiple packets that contain the exact same thing). This forces the attacker to generate some kinda of random information...which increases the size of the connection transmission and slows them down.
I clearly know nothing about this, or I'm sure someone would have such a device already, so I'm interested in seeing why this type of protection is not possible.
You could get off relatively unharmed for killing the dog, but killing a three month old baby would surely get you a long prison sentence.
I suppose it depends on where you live, but...have you taking a look at the recent animal rights statutes in most areas? In some cases, crimes against animals are just as severe or even MORE severe than those against humans.
For example, a man in Los Angeles, CA threw a brick at a dog that was tipping over his trash cans. It was witness by several people and the man was arrested for animal cruelty.
The very same month, a man threw a brick at a truck driver who was pulled from the cab by an accomplice. The event was carried on live TV and thousands of people witnessed the event.
The result? The man who threw the brick at the dog was sentanced to three to five years in prison and the man who threw the brick at the truck driver was ultimately given probation.
Now, of course...killing an infant is going to be considered "special circumstances" and is likely to land you serious jail time but...it's a bad idea to assume that laws are written in ways that make sense to you.
Peter Singer is also featured in the "That's Outrageous" column of the October 1999 issue of Reader's Digest.
Now, certainly the fact that Peter Singer is Australian does not mean that ALL (or even ANY) Aussies agree with him, but I find it interesting considering Austrailia's recent decision to enforce mandatory Internet censorship.
Some interesting questions....
Who gets to decide the official measure of a "defect"? Heart problems? Deformed limbs? Nearsighted eyes?
Doesn't it assume that the condition (which cannot be treated today) will not be solved by the time it affects the life of the infant? Back in the early 1990's, this principle could have been used to "eliminate" AIDS but, whoops, there are drugs now that can slow the disease down to a crawl.
Why does it matter in societies that legalize abortion? Are we saying that women can eliminate a baby from the population because "it's not the right time, it would affect my career" but not "I don't want to raise a mentally retarded child"? This means that parents must pretty much play deft and dumb when it comes to the progress of their developing child, less if they decide to have an abortion, they be accused of this form of euthanasia.
Facts are...I believe that while science can make general predictions, there are no absolute facts. The movie Gattaca makes this very point. No one can measure the potential of a child or account for future advancements of science.
But then again...this issue is really more about the subject of abortion (the killing of any developing child) than about euthanasia (the killing of a selected "misfortunate" child).
Remember at the end, the big idea Tom Hanks comes up with is an "interactive comic book" where the kid buys some reader and then plugs in different story modules for a "choose your own adventure" type experience?
Well, of course...ten years later this idea is still not marketable. Consider all the existing "digital book readers" out there that cost an absurd $400-$600 each, and don't really offer any savings on media due to horrible licensing and royalty rules.
I'm excited by the idea but of course...the standard "five to ten years to market" will apply even IF they get this to work. And isn't Xerox PARC also working on some kinda of digital paper that would also be cheap enough to throwaway, or be reused by running it back through the system.
The big question I have would be how fast something like this could refresh, and if there would be any ghosting. I remember seeing some demonstration of thin-film display technology that basically acted like a neon sign, where a single, continuous cell could be lit up by an electrical current, and then changing the flow would light up a different cell. To do words, you had to draw thin lines between charaters (sorta like underlining).
I don't remember what this technology was called, but the makers were touting it as a great way to do cheap,lighted, animated advertising on the sides of trucks and on billboards.
The big problem was the material could not refresh nearly fast enough to prevent the images from looking completely blurred. Just like scrolling text on early laptop screen (like GRiD or what have you)...the image had to sit for several second before you could even read it.
I see a lot of similarities between this new "Electronic Post Office" and AOL...
1) Proprietary service...in order to get full benefits of all the features, you need to send or receive mail from other EPO customers.
2) Real world interaction...AOL used to have an option (I don't know if it still works) where an e-mail could be sent snail mail or faxed to the real world for an additional fee.
3) Online banking...looks like you link this thing up to your bank account, hide behind 128 bit encryption, and let EPO suck money out and send checks to creditors. Already available from most major banks ay keywords like: Wells Fargo
The only major difference is that they promise "no data mining" while everyone knows that AOL will sell every scrap of information they have on you. Maybe the EPO is government funded thus not dependant on advertising revenue?
Don't impress me at all. Yet another site that requires you to commit everything to get the major benefits.
Just my impression after briefly flipping through their "Tour".
I like how I go to one website, and it automatically tells me what I do or do not have installed. Then I get presented with a list of new patches, arranged neatly into ranks like Critical, Highly Recommended, Fun and Games, even Beta Testing. I can even get told within minutes of a new critical patch being posted by installing Microsoft's Critical Update Notifier. Each patch included a description of the component involved so I can choose if it is right for that computer. Then, after checkmarking all the items I want, click a button to download and install the patches automatically.
This is, in my opinion, a good system and I compliment Microsoft for adopting it. I only wish that the *nix community would be willing to host similar update servers, particularly for the popular distributions.
There are just a couple things that I think should be changed:
1) Link to knowledge base and security alerts. When I see an item listed, I want more than just a one or two line blurb. And vice versa...if I get a security alert on a mailing list, or find a reason why I'm getting a certain bug, I want to click a link and see the fix added to my downoad queue.
2) Make it easier for it to work with secure or offline servers. I should be able to download an ISO image that contains an entire copy of the update website. So, all I have to do is pull down the ISO, burn it, pop it into the CD-ROM of the secure or offline server and PRESTO! I can browse a local copy of the same update site.
3) Download histories with option to uninstall. Right now my Windows Updates are buried under a half dozen items in some Add/Remove Programs control panel. I'd rather be able to see a list (sorted by date) of items I have installed so I can check off the one I want to uninstall. So, if I SWEAR it's a patch that is causing my problem (even if tech support doesn't agree with me) I don't have to reinstall to get rid of it.
Service Packs stink because I get a whole bunch of stuff I DON'T want just to get the one of two things I DO want. The only reason I install Service Pack 3 on stand-alone machines is so I can install MSIE...and the only reason I install Service Pack 5 on those same machines is so I can use 17GB hard drives. Sure, I could probably abort the install after it decompresses the files and just install the new ATAPI.SYS file...but then I'm skating on "unsupported territory". So I have cross my fingers and pray that this isn't another Service Pack 2 or Service Pack 4 or lose my support options.
I think everyone agrees that individual patches would be better since it allows ultimate user control. The only problem has been keeping tracking of where they are, what they do, and which have been installed. So, let's get them all organized...how about it?
...that the next version of Domino or Notes includes detailed content rating, or even makes it mandatory (Go to click OK and get "You have not filled out the rating field" error).
...and in another coincidence, Notes/Domino becomes the new standard for offices in the Australian government?
As several people have always pointed out, companies will kiss up to anyone that has potential purchasing power.
[sarcasm]
I suggest anyone out there with a nice fancy title like "Division Management Director of Information Technology System" call up IBM, ask to get a sales pitch for the new Lotus products, then wait five minutes and call them back to cancel the appointment because you just read on SlashDot that Lotus supports Internet censorship and you believe that is bad business.
Sony invented the Beta tape format...while Phillips developed VHS. Despite the fact that beta had higher quality, and cleaner edit cuts, VHS won with consumers and beta is only used in professional broadcasting.
Likewise, Sony did not invent the CD...they wanted consumers to use DAT. DAT had the same quality as CD, plus it was more durable and was (drumroll) RECORDABLE in DIGITAL. Of course, CD won the consumer market and DAT stays in professional recording studios.
Generally speaking...Sony's biggest mistake has been overestimating the taste of consumers.
A more detailed obituary is available on MSNBC...no @#$$!@# login needed either.
According to this article: "Morita [told] engineers to make Walkmans despite the lack of market research. "We don't believe in market research for a new product unknown to the public. So we never do any," he said.
How many great products never make it to the world because of some idiot in the marketing department who thinks his or her opinion is all that counts? It's not like marketing departments are ALWAYS right...or there wouldn't have been New Coke...Edsel...Iridium...Windows CE...
I really think someone who has guts to stand behind an idea is someone who will be sorely missed in this technology-based world.
And Beta was better, anyway...it's still the standard for broadcasting. Sony just didn't have the media clout back then to get high volumes of popular movies in that format...
My opinion...maybe true...probably not...just true enough to me.
Ummm...brute forcing sites takes longer than registering with pure crap.
I could also say if life was fair then the password for "foo" would always be "bar" and the password for "test" would always be "test" but the sad truth is that most times, the password for "foo" is "chow" and the password for "test" is "account"
You can spend all day trying to find which key on your keyring will work...I'll just punch a new one.
But I like the idea of posting login/pass...note to Rob: put "test_user" "test_user" in the tagline of any article from NYT...
You can call it "an alert to inform NYT that their passsword security has been breached"
First, I agree that yes...it is only fair to give a company advance warning. It's pretty much standard for news organizations (newspapers and television, etc) to call a company, drop the bomb on them and then ask for a comment.
L0pht argues that companies just will "sweep it under the rug"...so? BFD? You now get to add "I told you so" to the end of your advisory. Not every company is Microsoft and some would go running to their customers with patch CDs in their hands if they knew about serious bugs.
The real issue...what they aren't saying is that the reason they don't warn companies is because:
A) There is the risk that the company will make it public before they do...either by
1) posting the fix and thus making it look like l0pht is taking credit for something they didn't find or by
2) talking about it with someone who has connections with another security group, who publishes the information first.
and
B) If the resulting fallout is bad enough...there is more attention given to l0pht. Who the hell has heard of lopht besides IT professionals? Ah...but if they get blamed because they were "irresponsible" well, it's more hits to their website. It's like children who want attention...good or bad.
The best thing to do would be to draft a legal agreement and fax it to a company that they find released an insecure product. The draft would basically tell the company they can sign it, giving full credit to l0pht for the discovery of said insecurity and promising to give l0pht exclusing rights to information about how to fix said insecurity...or they can throw it away because they don't believe the hole exists and then take the fallout when it is posted in public.
...Which is why Microsoft created the Passport system. Then, anyone can login anywhere, anytime and not ever ever see a single password prompt, even if they loing to the wrong Hotmail account...whoops.
A more important question...how many people do you think type absolute crap whenever they get prompted for this @#$@##@% stupid NYT login crap?
I've read maybe ten articles at NYT that were slashdotted...and every time I typed something like name:asdfda email:fddffasd@fdsaf.com and was greatly amused when NYT asked me to take asdfda1129 because asdfda was already taken.
With all the SlashDot readers probably doing the same thing every time there is a NYT article...think how much mail must bounce from that mailing list and how much crap is in the user database.
I am a big fan of user registeration (points proudly to/. #90109 ID) I am only a fan when it is VOLUNTARY (I was AC for many months until I started counting how much karma I was losing).
Any website that FORCES you to register to even evaluate if you are interested in their goods is going to end up with an awful lot of hateful swear words as user name.
What do you all think? Is there anyone who actually writes all these thousands of worthless logins down in case they clear our their cookie jar?
...l0pht stopped updating their PalmPilot section.
Besides, the "BeamCrack" they posted there that supposedly defeats the beam copy protection doesn't since it only works on databases (PDBs) and the real security issue is with beaming copy protected programs (PRCs)...
Not so infantile if it slips under l0pht's radar, is it?
Oh well...there are better security sites, IMHO...but I really, really liked the hippie Palm graphic that l0pht had on theirs...
128-bit CPUs...yes, of course...if there isn't such thing as a TRUE 64-bit (through and through) processor, how can Hitachi already have an 128-bit one? I don't think I said that. My point was that subsystems are already digesting bits and pieces of information in chunks much larger pieces than 64-bits...aren't most memory controllers 128-bit and aren't Maxtrox cards chewing at 256-bits within the localized world of on-board video memory?
I remember the transformation from 16-bit to 32-bit happened literally overnight. The 386 came out, was completely backwared compatible and all you had to do was run Windows in standard or 386 enhanced modes. Now, we are losing backwards compatibilty and it's not like these Merced chips are out tomorrow...wasn't this supposed to come out sometime closer to 2001? To me, this leap to 64-bit processing is more about changing the instruction set than changing the amount of data you can crunch. That's what worries me since it means that everything is going to be emulated and will probably run as crappy as my Win16 applications run in NTVDM.
Unless Transmeta fixes that but that is another discussion thread entirely...
Regarding cost...of course. But costs come down eventually as the technology becomes adopted. It may take longer to trickle down from servers to consumers but eventually it gets there. Alpha is not an accurate example because that wasn't just about "better". NextStep was "better". Better gets you nothing...if "better" also means "different" and "not backward compatible".
Time and time again, companies prove that abandoning backwards compatibility is the WORST thing you can do. Commodore killed themselves overnight by sinking all their money into the Amiga 4000, which could not use any of the software or hardware from any previous Amiga line. And NeXT, too, learned that lesson. Microsoft, I dare say, is the success they are simply because they are still dragging along that old backward compatibility mentality, and will even be doing so in their Millenium product.
All I'm saying is that I see 128-bit everywhere in marketting hype (look at Apple's new G4 descriptions) and 64-bit seems to be 1998's big buzzword. If Intel finally comes out with 64-bit some time towards the end of 2000, it won't be backward compatible so all the existing Pentium customers aren't going to be interested, and it won't be "cool enough" that power users will want to invest in it...so...disaster in the making?
If there was a 64-bit x86 processor, I would buy it but...my understand is that there is not nor ever will be if the company that invented x86 is finally washing their hands of it...
As far as speeds go, I dare say they can be the same rate...like I said in my original post, we now have busses running at 133MHz, the same speeds that processors were running at just a few years ago. You may scoff at the idea of higher bus speeds but ten years from now when my kids are reading SlashDot archives on 500MHz holographic displays imbedded in their eyeballs, they'll have to give a knowing smirk...
And regarding single point of failure...I'm not talking hot swapping nor am I talking live switchovers...this isn't about 99.9% uptime for a server. I'm talking about spending $560 on a processor instead of $125 each on four of them. If that processor dies...I'm down until I can either returned it to the store (if it happened within 30 days), return it to the manufacturer (if it happened within a year) or return it to the ground from whence it came. If one of the cheap-o processors dies, I can reboot and come back with a working system, albeit with only 1 or 2 processors.
It's like RAM and hard drives...is there anyone out there that has only one single 256MB DIMM or 20GB drive in their possession? Or more likely...you have every spare DIMM slot and IDE/SCSI connector filled even if you had to pull out a crusty 16MB DIMM or 2.1GB to do it?
Processors, IMHO, should be no different. I don't need the same processor speeds in a BeowOOOOOlf cluster, do I? I don't need the same processors speeds for SETI@Home, do I? If the architeture had been designed for SMP years ago, I don't see why processors could be as board independant as RAM or hard drives.
Okay...enough from me...the issue just hits a nerve for me because I really, honestly, have not felt love for my PC system since the 486 that lasted me for six years. Everything else seemed literally like junk the second I booted it. I think that since the Pentium era begun, I haven't been able to keep a system for more than two years...sad...really sad...
...would you brag about a girlfriend with only one breast? "My girlfriend has a giant F-cup breast and your girlfriend only has two, evenly-proportioned C-cup breasts?"
Silly I know, but my point is that consumers can be trained to think anything is better if the advertising says it is. If they create some cute little "Puffy, the SMP doggy" all the JoeShmoes are gonna run out and ask for dual-processor systems at Circuit City and Best Buy.
Tell them they need two processors so one can access the Internet and the other can play games, or better yet...tell them they need a processor for every application they want to run. That outta put consumer demand for SMP on the laps of those boys in marketting...
Damn...his post beat mine by ONE MINUTE. Which means mine is probably gonna be marked "0: Redundant"
Oh well...GTMA...I'm glad to see I'm not the only one who thinks this game of "anything you can do, I can do better" for processor speeds has gone far enough...
If AMD really wants to kill Intel, they need to fire their marketing guys and realize that while they make little or no profit on their economy line of processors...if they have SMP, they can sell two, four or eight times as many...and thus make a lot more money than if they sold just a single "high-end" processor.
Are there STILL people out there that think their processor is the bottleneck of their system?
It's everything else!!!
Remember when the 486DX2 came out? You could have a 486DX2 running internally at 66Mhz on a bus of 33MHz...or choose the 486DX running at 50MHz on a bus of 50MHz? What did the benchmarks say? The all-50-MHz system was much faster.
But, instead of spending their time improving the speed and data width of the bus, chip makers tripled the internal speed...then quadrupled... now the minimum is quintuple the speed and AMD thinks we need septupal (notice I conveniently skip the dirty one).
I fail to see why the bus systems and processors can't make the speed transition at the same time. The extra time in the CPU cycle can be spent improving data pipes between components and increasing the number of processors. Imagine if the standard system today was four, 128-bit processors running at 133MHz on a bus of 133MHz?
I say end the madness...AMD and Intel need to spend their time working on cheap, stable 128-bit SMP instead of this overwhelmingly-fast single-point-of-failure! Why 128-bit? Because if I'm going to have to throw always all my existing technology and go through another period where everything I need to run is considered "legacy" then make it worth my while and jump right to 128-bits! 64-bit is obsolete,even for game consoles. Hell, there are Windows CE portables can have 128-bit Hitachi processors (although again, nothing else in the unit is 128-bit).
I want a nice fat data pipe running at a cool, stable 200-300 megahertz. Not some processor that is ready to go critical and burn a hole through my motherboard.
[/rant]
As always, my opinion...not yours. Remember that before when you post flamebait or troll replies.
A) General public/media thinks it's a toy B) A favorite among scientists and engineers the world over C) Made from small, re-usuable pieces that plug together D) Several people can play with it at once, working together to form a large, complex structures E) There are no rules other than the physics of how the pieces fit and the morals of playing nice with others.
Now, was I just talking about a bunch of kids using Legos or a bunch of geeks using Linux?
- JoeShmoe
PS - other noteworthy comparisons should probably be tacked on to this thread as a reply.
In fact, I'm only paying $30/month instead of the normal price of $40/month because of AOL.
Recently in the Bay Area (CA), @Home advertised a promotion designed to attract existing AOL members. Basically, they waved all installation fees ($150) and then would pay your AOL bill until the year 2000. The way they did this is by having your change your $22/month AOL account to AOL's $10/month "BYOA" (Bring Your Own Access) deal where you keep your AOL account, but cannot dial into their AOLNet numbers. So, instead you connect to AOL over a TCP/IP connection...which is what @Home gives you.
They pay for your account by basically subtracting $10/month from your @Home bill. I signed up for this in July so, it will save me probably $150 + $60.
Anyway, this news comes too late for anyone in the Bay Area who missed the ads on late-night TV but my point is that @Home is already following AOL's plan of "AOL anywhere". AOL doesn't care how the AOL content gets to customers (be it satellite, cable, DSL, etc)...they just want to sell their proprietary content. I find it funny that about a month before this deal, AOL was lobbying for "open lines" so that AOL could have access to all of the cable modem customers. @Home wasn't interested in letting people choose AOL as their ISP. But then, a month later they offer this deal and basically tell people "you can have TWO ISPs and it's even cheaper!"
Technically, I now have eight e-mail address (five from AOL, three from @Home) and 20 MB of web space (10MB from AOL, 10MB from @Home). Yet, I used to be paying $22 + $40 and now I'm paying $30. I don't understand the business behind it, but I think that @Home really tipped its hands by offering this deal. They obviously lust after AOL's 16 million + members.
Line-of-sight technology has no business in this increasingly-networked world. This disco ball idea is nothing more than a kludge to try to work around IR's primary limitation.
Sure, IR was great when all you needed it to do was change channels on your TV set. But now you have two or three TV sets with VCRs and stereo components and every damn one (except Bose) uses the same crappy line-of-sight IR technology.
This idea, honestly, is nothing new. I'm only sorry I didn't patent it. For years I've been using mylar loops to accomplish the same results. Just goto a novelty supply store and pick up a roll of mylar film (its basically plastic with a mirror surface). Cut strips of this stuff and put it in corners around your house. Also try to put mylar on any surfaces surrounding the IR receiver.
By aiming my IR remote at the right corner, I can actually control my VCR or cable box from other rooms and even down a flight of stairs. But it's still a kludge.
I wish the FCC would open up more of the lower ranges for consumer use so that cheap RF remotes could finally be implemented. Apple, get your AirPort to work with a PCI or PC Card interface, puh-leeze!
Remember...IR is (in the most basic sense) heat...so IR networking is just a NIC having hot flashes. The technology is tired and I sure hope that it's not still around in ten years.
Yes, but we are not talking about rolling gently down a New Zealand hill...we are talking chucking ourselves over the side of a steep cliff like Jackie Chan did.
I think it would be a fantastic publicity stunt to bring one of those Zorbs to the US and then throw yourself down the Grand Canyon. Of course, your lawyers would probably not agree.
Out of curiousity...did the name "Zorb" stem from the fact that the giant air pockets ab-zorb the force of impact? Just curious...
Slashdot Mirror
Not the demo, the development kit? Seriously...this demo is worthless because (last time I check it) you could only play some silly Java puzzle game since that was the only webpage on the server. You also had to have pretty standard hardware (3Com NIC, etc).
= -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Now, if I could modify this sub 1.5MB wonder to include the ONE driver for the hardware part I really need...and have it serve up a single webpage with links to my primary websites...then I would think this is very very cool indeed.
Imagine the next time a user's system isn't working: he or she boot this preconfigured floppy (which has the exact drivers needed for that system), which then connect to a server, uploads the data directory, pulls down a new image of WinNT or whatever, reloads the data and voila! The user has fixed his or her own system and I didn't even have to know about it.
This would also be terrific for web-based training programs...a user could pop in a "C++" disk that would be preconfigured to take them to the C++ training program on a CBT server.
So how much is it gonna cost me to be able to develop this kinda diskette...or am I only going to be able to use the QNX operating system on embedded devices?
- JoeShmoe
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Um, did you miss the POINT of Jurassic Park? Given the choice...I'd rather have a zillion-polygon, curved-surface, bump-mapped, dynamically lit dinosaur in my virtual reality goggles than a REAL dinosaur standing on what was once my body but is not a bit of squishy pulp between its toes.
= -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
You also sound a big like Kahn from the original Star Trek episode "improve a machine and you gain ten times...improve man and you gain a thousand fold". It may be true but it is a LOT easier to control computers than living organisms.
Before some wise guy spouts off about artificial intelligence, let me just say that anyone who thinks AI lifeforms (if they ever do exist) will not have some hard-wire kill switch like Data then you are completely nuts.
Remember...if it's smart enough to pass the Turing Test it's smart enough to know the answer to "How do I kill you?"
- JoeShmoe
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Routers are designed to do one thing (series of things) and to do them fast and well with little overhead. As you add more and more "functionality", the device becomes more and more of a server that routes, and resource costs become more intensive.
= -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
I disagree. First of all, I think a simple comparison of an incoming packet to a previously stored packet in a buffer somewhere is not really a significant overhead. It doesn't need to check every single packet (since odds are there will be identical ones under legitamate usage) but if some kiddie tries "ping a zillion times with 32000 bytes of data as fast as possible" surely some router should be smart enough to say "uh, no" if that is it's owners wish. Operating systems don't enforce any limits on the quality and quantity of data they send, therefore I say that it is the job of the router to make that determination. If there is a valid use for "ping a zillion times with 32000 bytes of data as fast as possible" then let it find some other route, because I don't want to lose my bandwidth because of it.
Second of all...even if there is overhead, it's only price. So you have to pay for a 100Mbit router to get 10Mbit performance...costs always go down over time and the difference is that you may only have 10Mbit worth of actual data after you are able to block out abusing users absorbing data with meaningless attacks.
I've seen water valves where there is a object set perpendicular to the flow of water in the value. Water rushing over the object decreases the pressure over it, causing the object to rise and block part of the flow. Thus, a slow, steady stream can pass through but sudden spikes of high pressure will be bouced back as the value slams shut on it. Once the pressure has reduced, the flow continues as normal. Also a good comparision, I guess, would be surge suppressors.
What's my point with those two comparisons? In both cases the control is done at a VERY low level. Similarly, since there has to be a set bit format for a valid IP packet, I fail to see why it would take serious overhead to tabulate what source is sending the most packets per second and drop packets from excessively high connections so that upstream bandwidth is shared equally and abusive connections slow to a crawl.
If I understand correctly, it's not just the target server that loses in a DoS situation...it's every router along the way. Therefore I think it would be an incentive for people to pony up the resource cost so that abusers would have to route their traffic somewhere else...no?
- JoeShmoe
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
If this ever will be used, "reverse" DoS attacks will be rampant -- it will be enough to pretend that victim's address is trying to do something "bad"
= -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Perhaps you misunderstand...how would this be possible since, even if you spoof an IP address, the connection still has to be received and forwarded by the router attached to the REAL address?
I'm suggesting the problem needs to be attacked well below the application layer. The data should not be processed, it should simply be compared to other data in some kinda of buffer.
IE...a single connection, like FTP, would generate a huge amount of traffic, but it would all be unique (it's safe to say no one would be downloading the same file over and over 100 times a minute). Therefore, if the router buffered the traffic, there would be no match between packets and the stream would continue.
But...multiple connection (real or spoofed, valid or incomplete) would also generate a huge amount of traffic...but there would be an obvious pattern. The router would see the same size packets with the same destination many times in a row and then simply refuse to route traffic for that REAL connection. Therefore, no routers upstream would be affected and the only thing the attacker would be DoSing is his own connection.
It's like...comparing the waveforms of a sound file and an EKG. You can easily spot the repeating pattern in an EKG by buffering just a few miliseconds. And, if the attacker enlarges the repeating portion to escape detection, he is also decreasing the number of connections per second...down to the point where a decently fast server can handle them.
IT would kill programs like GetRight with rely on hammering to get their target information AS SOON AS POSSIBLE, but really...this is software we can live without.
- JoeShmoe
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
...invent some router or switch that can be programmed with some kinda of connection login?
= -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
IE...wouldn't DoS attacks become impossible if routers could be programmed with somethink like "if number of packets from A to B on port X > Y, drop connection A". Sorta like how most IRC servers have flood protection, where if you try to flood the IRC server with information requests (in an attempt to split that server from the network), the server simply disconnects you. Or how mail servers that detect you are sending "too much mail" can drop your connection until they can see if you are a potential spammer"
The technology clearly exists to cap transfer rate (as @Home does with my connection) so why can't it simply have a quote assigned to abused ports like what ping, tracert, NetBios, and the various trojans use?
Blocking the traffic at the endpoint slows down every connection along the way. Internet service providers who don't want to support this kind of traffic should be able to automatically disconnect
you if are being abusive. It might also be possible to monitor WHAT is being sent (multiple packets that contain the exact same thing). This forces the attacker to generate some kinda of random information...which increases the size of the connection transmission and slows them down.
I clearly know nothing about this, or I'm sure someone would have such a device already, so I'm interested in seeing why this type of protection is not possible.
- JoeShmoe
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
You could get off relatively unharmed for killing the dog, but killing a three month old baby would surely get you a long prison sentence.
= -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
I suppose it depends on where you live, but...have you taking a look at the recent animal rights statutes in most areas? In some cases, crimes against animals are just as severe or even MORE severe than those against humans.
For example, a man in Los Angeles, CA threw a brick at a dog that was tipping over his trash cans. It was witness by several people and the man was arrested for animal cruelty.
The very same month, a man threw a brick at a truck driver who was pulled from the cab by an accomplice. The event was carried on live TV and thousands of people witnessed the event.
The result? The man who threw the brick at the dog was sentanced to three to five years in prison and the man who threw the brick at the truck driver was ultimately given probation.
Now, of course...killing an infant is going to be considered "special circumstances" and is likely to land you serious jail time but...it's a bad idea to assume that laws are written in ways that make sense to you.
- JoeShmoe
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Peter Singer is also featured in the "That's Outrageous" column of the October 1999 issue of Reader's Digest.
= -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Now, certainly the fact that Peter Singer is Australian does not mean that ALL (or even ANY) Aussies agree with him, but I find it interesting considering Austrailia's recent decision to enforce mandatory Internet censorship.
Some interesting questions....
Who gets to decide the official measure of a "defect"? Heart problems? Deformed limbs? Nearsighted eyes?
Doesn't it assume that the condition (which cannot be treated today) will not be solved by the time it affects the life of the infant? Back in the early 1990's, this principle could have been used to "eliminate" AIDS but, whoops, there are drugs now that can slow the disease down to a crawl.
Why does it matter in societies that legalize abortion? Are we saying that women can eliminate a baby from the population because "it's not the right time, it would affect my career" but not "I don't want to raise a mentally retarded child"? This means that parents must pretty much play deft and dumb when it comes to the progress of their developing child, less if they decide to have an abortion, they be accused of this form of euthanasia.
Facts are...I believe that while science can make general predictions, there are no absolute facts. The movie Gattaca makes this very point. No one can measure the potential of a child or account for future advancements of science.
But then again...this issue is really more about the subject of abortion (the killing of any developing child) than about euthanasia (the killing of a selected "misfortunate" child).
Just my OPINION...please treat it as such.
- JoeShmoe
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Remember at the end, the big idea Tom Hanks comes up with is an "interactive comic book" where the kid buys some reader and then plugs in different story modules for a "choose your own adventure" type experience?
= -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Well, of course...ten years later this idea is still not marketable. Consider all the existing "digital book readers" out there that cost an absurd $400-$600 each, and don't really offer any savings on media due to horrible licensing and royalty rules.
I'm excited by the idea but of course...the standard "five to ten years to market" will apply even IF they get this to work. And isn't Xerox PARC also working on some kinda of digital paper that would also be cheap enough to throwaway, or be reused by running it back through the system.
The big question I have would be how fast something like this could refresh, and if there would be any ghosting. I remember seeing some demonstration of thin-film display technology that basically acted like a neon sign, where a single, continuous cell could be lit up by an electrical current, and then changing the flow would light up a different cell. To do words, you had to draw thin lines between charaters (sorta like underlining).
I don't remember what this technology was called, but the makers were touting it as a great way to do cheap,lighted, animated advertising on the sides of trucks and on billboards.
The big problem was the material could not refresh nearly fast enough to prevent the images from looking completely blurred. Just like scrolling text on early laptop screen (like GRiD or what have you)...the image had to sit for several second before you could even read it.
Just my thoughts on the issue...
- JoeShmoe
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
I see a lot of similarities between this new "Electronic Post Office" and AOL...
= -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
1) Proprietary service...in order to get full benefits of all the features, you need to send or receive mail from other EPO customers.
2) Real world interaction...AOL used to have an option (I don't know if it still works) where an e-mail could be sent snail mail or faxed to the real world for an additional fee.
3) Online banking...looks like you link this thing up to your bank account, hide behind 128 bit encryption, and let EPO suck money out and send checks to creditors. Already available from most major banks ay keywords like: Wells Fargo
The only major difference is that they promise "no data mining" while everyone knows that AOL will sell every scrap of information they have on you. Maybe the EPO is government funded thus not dependant on advertising revenue?
Don't impress me at all. Yet another site that requires you to commit everything to get the major benefits.
Just my impression after briefly flipping through their "Tour".
- JoeShmoe
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
I like how I go to one website, and it automatically tells me what I do or do not have installed. Then I get presented with a list of new patches, arranged neatly into ranks like Critical, Highly Recommended, Fun and Games, even Beta Testing. I can even get told within minutes of a new critical patch being posted by installing Microsoft's Critical Update Notifier. Each patch included a description of the component involved so I can choose if it is right for that computer. Then, after checkmarking all the items I want, click a button to download and install the patches automatically.
= -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
This is, in my opinion, a good system and I compliment Microsoft for adopting it. I only wish that the *nix community would be willing to host similar update servers, particularly for the popular distributions.
There are just a couple things that I think should be changed:
1) Link to knowledge base and security alerts. When I see an item listed, I want more than just a one or two line blurb. And vice versa...if I get a security alert on a mailing list, or find a reason why I'm getting a certain bug, I want to click a link and see the fix added to my downoad queue.
2) Make it easier for it to work with secure or offline servers. I should be able to download an ISO image that contains an entire copy of the update website. So, all I have to do is pull down the ISO, burn it, pop it into the CD-ROM of the secure or offline server and PRESTO! I can browse a local copy of the same update site.
3) Download histories with option to uninstall. Right now my Windows Updates are buried under a half dozen items in some Add/Remove Programs control panel. I'd rather be able to see a list (sorted by date) of items I have installed so I can check off the one I want to uninstall. So, if I SWEAR it's a patch that is causing my problem (even if tech support doesn't agree with me) I don't have to reinstall to get rid of it.
Service Packs stink because I get a whole bunch of stuff I DON'T want just to get the one of two things I DO want. The only reason I install Service Pack 3 on stand-alone machines is so I can install MSIE...and the only reason I install Service Pack 5 on those same machines is so I can use 17GB hard drives. Sure, I could probably abort the install after it decompresses the files and just install the new ATAPI.SYS file...but then I'm skating on "unsupported territory". So I have cross my fingers and pray that this isn't another Service Pack 2 or Service Pack 4 or lose my support options.
I think everyone agrees that individual patches would be better since it allows ultimate user control. The only problem has been keeping tracking of where they are, what they do, and which have been installed. So, let's get them all organized...how about it?
- JoeShmoe
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
...that the next version of Domino or Notes includes detailed content rating, or even makes it mandatory (Go to click OK and get "You have not filled out the rating field" error).
= -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
...and in another coincidence, Notes/Domino becomes the new standard for offices in the Australian government?
As several people have always pointed out, companies will kiss up to anyone that has potential purchasing power.
[sarcasm]
I suggest anyone out there with a nice fancy title like "Division Management Director of Information Technology System" call up IBM, ask to get a sales pitch for the new Lotus products, then wait five minutes and call them back to cancel the appointment because you just read on SlashDot that Lotus supports Internet censorship and you believe that is bad business.
[/sarcasm]
- JoeShmoe
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Sony invented the Beta tape format...while Phillips developed VHS. Despite the fact that beta had higher quality, and cleaner edit cuts, VHS won with consumers and beta is only used in professional broadcasting.
= -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Likewise, Sony did not invent the CD...they wanted consumers to use DAT. DAT had the same quality as CD, plus it was more durable and was (drumroll) RECORDABLE in DIGITAL. Of course, CD won the consumer market and DAT stays in professional recording studios.
Generally speaking...Sony's biggest mistake has been overestimating the taste of consumers.
- JoeShmoe
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
A more detailed obituary is available on MSNBC ...no @#$$!@# login needed either.
= -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
According to this article: "Morita [told] engineers to make Walkmans despite the lack of market research. "We don't believe in market research for a new product unknown to the public. So we never do any," he said.
How many great products never make it to the world because of some idiot in the marketing department who thinks his or her opinion is all that counts? It's not like marketing departments are ALWAYS right...or there wouldn't have been New Coke...Edsel...Iridium...Windows CE...
I really think someone who has guts to stand behind an idea is someone who will be sorely missed in this technology-based world.
And Beta was better, anyway...it's still the standard for broadcasting. Sony just didn't have the media clout back then to get high volumes of popular movies in that format...
My opinion...maybe true...probably not...just true enough to me.
- JoeShmoe
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Ummm...brute forcing sites takes longer than registering with pure crap.
= -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
I could also say if life was fair then the password for "foo" would always be "bar" and the password for "test" would always be "test" but the sad truth is that most times, the password for "foo" is "chow" and the password for "test" is "account"
You can spend all day trying to find which key on your keyring will work...I'll just punch a new one.
But I like the idea of posting login/pass...note to Rob: put "test_user" "test_user" in the tagline of any article from NYT...
You can call it "an alert to inform NYT that their passsword security has been breached"
Quick! Before l0pht does it! =)
- JoeShmoe
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Well...two comments...
= -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
First, I agree that yes...it is only fair to give a company advance warning. It's pretty much standard for news organizations (newspapers and television, etc) to call a company, drop the bomb on them and then ask for a comment.
L0pht argues that companies just will "sweep it under the rug"...so? BFD? You now get to add "I told you so" to the end of your advisory. Not every company is Microsoft and some would go running to their customers with patch CDs in their hands if they knew about serious bugs.
The real issue...what they aren't saying is that the reason they don't warn companies is because:
A) There is the risk that the company will make it public before they do...either by
1) posting the fix and thus making it look like l0pht is taking credit for something they didn't find or by
2) talking about it with someone who has connections with another security group, who publishes the information first.
and
B) If the resulting fallout is bad enough...there is more attention given to l0pht. Who the hell has heard of lopht besides IT professionals? Ah...but if they get blamed because they were "irresponsible" well, it's more hits to their website. It's like children who want attention...good or bad.
The best thing to do would be to draft a legal agreement and fax it to a company that they find released an insecure product. The draft would basically tell the company they can sign it, giving full credit to l0pht for the discovery of said insecurity and promising to give l0pht exclusing rights to information about how to fix said insecurity...or they can throw it away because they don't believe the hole exists and then take the fallout when it is posted in public.
- JoeShmoe
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
...Which is why Microsoft created the Passport system. Then, anyone can login anywhere, anytime and not ever ever see a single password prompt, even if they loing to the wrong Hotmail account...whoops.
/. #90109 ID) I am only a fan when it is VOLUNTARY (I was AC for many months until I started counting how much karma I was losing).
= -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
A more important question...how many people do you think type absolute crap whenever they get prompted for this @#$@##@% stupid NYT login crap?
I've read maybe ten articles at NYT that were slashdotted...and every time I typed something like name:asdfda email:fddffasd@fdsaf.com and was greatly amused when NYT asked me to take asdfda1129 because asdfda was already taken.
With all the SlashDot readers probably doing the same thing every time there is a NYT article...think how much mail must bounce from that mailing list and how much crap is in the user database.
I am a big fan of user registeration (points proudly to
Any website that FORCES you to register to even evaluate if you are interested in their goods is going to end up with an awful lot of hateful swear words as user name.
What do you all think? Is there anyone who actually writes all these thousands of worthless logins down in case they clear our their cookie jar?
- JoeShmoe
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
...l0pht stopped updating their PalmPilot section.
= -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Besides, the "BeamCrack" they posted there that supposedly defeats the beam copy protection doesn't since it only works on databases (PDBs) and the real security issue is with beaming copy protected programs (PRCs)...
Not so infantile if it slips under l0pht's radar, is it?
Oh well...there are better security sites, IMHO...but I really, really liked the hippie Palm graphic that l0pht had on theirs...
- JoeShmoe
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
128-bit CPUs...yes, of course...if there isn't such thing as a TRUE 64-bit (through and through) processor, how can Hitachi already have an 128-bit one? I don't think I said that. My point was that subsystems are already digesting bits and pieces of information in chunks much larger pieces than 64-bits...aren't most memory controllers 128-bit and aren't Maxtrox cards chewing at 256-bits within the localized world of on-board video memory?
= -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
I remember the transformation from 16-bit to 32-bit happened literally overnight. The 386 came out, was completely backwared compatible and all you had to do was run Windows in standard or 386 enhanced modes. Now, we are losing backwards compatibilty and it's not like these Merced chips are out tomorrow...wasn't this supposed to come out sometime closer to 2001? To me, this leap to 64-bit processing is more about changing the instruction set than changing the amount of data you can crunch. That's what worries me since it means that everything is going to be emulated and will probably run as crappy as my Win16 applications run in NTVDM.
Unless Transmeta fixes that but that is another discussion thread entirely...
Regarding cost...of course. But costs come down eventually as the technology becomes adopted. It may take longer to trickle down from servers to consumers but eventually it gets there. Alpha is not an accurate example because that wasn't just about "better". NextStep was "better". Better gets you nothing...if "better" also means "different" and "not backward compatible".
Time and time again, companies prove that abandoning backwards compatibility is the WORST thing you can do. Commodore killed themselves overnight by sinking all their money into the Amiga 4000, which could not use any of the software or hardware from any previous Amiga line. And NeXT, too, learned that lesson. Microsoft, I dare say, is the success they are simply because they are still dragging along that old backward compatibility mentality, and will even be doing so in their Millenium product.
All I'm saying is that I see 128-bit everywhere in marketting hype (look at Apple's new G4 descriptions) and 64-bit seems to be 1998's big buzzword. If Intel finally comes out with 64-bit some time towards the end of 2000, it won't be backward compatible so all the existing Pentium customers aren't going to be interested, and it won't be "cool enough" that power users will want to invest in it...so...disaster in the making?
If there was a 64-bit x86 processor, I would buy it but...my understand is that there is not nor ever will be if the company that invented x86 is finally washing their hands of it...
As far as speeds go, I dare say they can be the same rate...like I said in my original post, we now have busses running at 133MHz, the same speeds that processors were running at just a few years ago. You may scoff at the idea of higher bus speeds but ten years from now when my kids are reading SlashDot archives on 500MHz holographic displays imbedded in their eyeballs, they'll have to give a knowing smirk...
And regarding single point of failure...I'm not talking hot swapping nor am I talking live switchovers...this isn't about 99.9% uptime for a server. I'm talking about spending $560 on a processor instead of $125 each on four of them. If that processor dies...I'm down until I can either returned it to the store (if it happened within 30 days), return it to the manufacturer (if it happened within a year) or return it to the ground from whence it came. If one of the cheap-o processors dies, I can reboot and come back with a working system, albeit with only 1 or 2 processors.
It's like RAM and hard drives...is there anyone out there that has only one single 256MB DIMM or 20GB drive in their possession? Or more likely...you have every spare DIMM slot and IDE/SCSI connector filled even if you had to pull out a crusty 16MB DIMM or 2.1GB to do it?
Processors, IMHO, should be no different. I don't need the same processor speeds in a BeowOOOOOlf cluster, do I? I don't need the same processors speeds for SETI@Home, do I? If the architeture had been designed for SMP years ago, I don't see why processors could be as board independant as RAM or hard drives.
Okay...enough from me...the issue just hits a nerve for me because I really, honestly, have not felt love for my PC system since the 486 that lasted me for six years. Everything else seemed literally like junk the second I booted it. I think that since the Pentium era begun, I haven't been able to keep a system for more than two years...sad...really sad...
- JoeShmoe
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
...would you brag about a girlfriend with only one breast? "My girlfriend has a giant F-cup breast and your girlfriend only has two, evenly-proportioned C-cup breasts?"
= -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Silly I know, but my point is that consumers can be trained to think anything is better if the advertising says it is. If they create some cute little "Puffy, the SMP doggy" all the JoeShmoes are gonna run out and ask for dual-processor systems at Circuit City and Best Buy.
Tell them they need two processors so one can access the Internet and the other can play games, or better yet...tell them they need a processor for every application they want to run. That outta put consumer demand for SMP on the laps of those boys in marketting...
- JoeShmoe
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Damn...his post beat mine by ONE MINUTE. Which means mine is probably gonna be marked "0: Redundant"
= -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Oh well...GTMA...I'm glad to see I'm not the only one who thinks this game of "anything you can do, I can do better" for processor speeds has gone far enough...
If AMD really wants to kill Intel, they need to fire their marketing guys and realize that while they make little or no profit on their economy line of processors...if they have SMP, they can sell two, four or eight times as many...and thus make a lot more money than if they sold just a single "high-end" processor.
- JoeShmoe
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
[rant]
= -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Are there STILL people out there that think their processor is the bottleneck of their system?
It's everything else!!!
Remember when the 486DX2 came out? You could have a 486DX2 running internally at 66Mhz on a bus of 33MHz...or choose the 486DX running at 50MHz on a bus of 50MHz? What did the benchmarks say? The all-50-MHz system was much faster.
But, instead of spending their time improving the speed and data width of the bus, chip makers tripled the internal speed...then quadrupled... now the minimum is quintuple the speed and AMD thinks we need septupal (notice I conveniently skip the dirty one).
I fail to see why the bus systems and processors can't make the speed transition at the same time. The extra time in the CPU cycle can be spent improving data pipes between components and increasing the number of processors. Imagine if the standard system today was four, 128-bit processors running at 133MHz on a bus of 133MHz?
I say end the madness...AMD and Intel need to spend their time working on cheap, stable 128-bit SMP instead of this overwhelmingly-fast single-point-of-failure! Why 128-bit? Because if I'm going to have to throw always all my existing technology and go through another period where everything I need to run is considered "legacy" then make it worth my while and jump right to 128-bits! 64-bit is obsolete,even for game consoles. Hell, there are Windows CE portables can have 128-bit Hitachi processors (although again, nothing else in the unit is 128-bit).
I want a nice fat data pipe running at a cool, stable 200-300 megahertz. Not some processor that is ready to go critical and burn a hole through my motherboard.
[/rant]
As always, my opinion...not yours. Remember that before when you post flamebait or troll replies.
- JoeShmoe
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Think about it...
= -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
A) General public/media thinks it's a toy
B) A favorite among scientists and engineers the world over
C) Made from small, re-usuable pieces that plug together
D) Several people can play with it at once, working together to form a large, complex structures
E) There are no rules other than the physics of how the pieces fit and the morals of playing nice with others.
Now, was I just talking about a bunch of kids using Legos or a bunch of geeks using Linux?
- JoeShmoe
PS - other noteworthy comparisons should probably be tacked on to this thread as a reply.
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
In fact, I'm only paying $30/month instead of the normal price of $40/month because of AOL.
= -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Recently in the Bay Area (CA), @Home advertised a promotion designed to attract existing AOL members. Basically, they waved all installation fees ($150) and then would pay your AOL bill until the year 2000. The way they did this is by having your change your $22/month AOL account to AOL's $10/month "BYOA" (Bring Your Own Access) deal where you keep your AOL account, but cannot dial into their AOLNet numbers. So, instead you connect to AOL over a TCP/IP connection...which is what @Home gives you.
They pay for your account by basically subtracting $10/month from your @Home bill. I signed up for this in July so, it will save me probably $150 + $60.
Anyway, this news comes too late for anyone in the Bay Area who missed the ads on late-night TV but my point is that @Home is already following AOL's plan of "AOL anywhere". AOL doesn't care how the AOL content gets to customers (be it satellite, cable, DSL, etc)...they just want to sell their proprietary content. I find it funny that about a month before this deal, AOL was lobbying for "open lines" so that AOL could have access to all of the cable modem customers. @Home wasn't interested in letting people choose AOL as their ISP. But then, a month later they offer this deal and basically tell people "you can have TWO ISPs and it's even cheaper!"
Technically, I now have eight e-mail address (five from AOL, three from @Home) and 20 MB of web space (10MB from AOL, 10MB from @Home). Yet, I used to be paying $22 + $40 and now I'm paying $30. I don't understand the business behind it, but I think that @Home really tipped its hands by offering this deal. They obviously lust after AOL's 16 million + members.
- JoeShmoe
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Line-of-sight technology has no business in this increasingly-networked world. This disco ball idea is nothing more than a kludge to try to work around IR's primary limitation.
= -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Sure, IR was great when all you needed it to do was change channels on your TV set. But now you have two or three TV sets with VCRs and stereo components and every damn one (except Bose) uses the same crappy line-of-sight IR technology.
This idea, honestly, is nothing new. I'm only sorry I didn't patent it. For years I've been using mylar loops to accomplish the same results. Just goto a novelty supply store and pick up a roll of mylar film (its basically plastic with a mirror surface). Cut strips of this stuff and put it in corners around your house. Also try to put mylar on any surfaces surrounding the IR receiver.
By aiming my IR remote at the right corner, I can actually control my VCR or cable box from other rooms and even down a flight of stairs. But it's still a kludge.
I wish the FCC would open up more of the lower ranges for consumer use so that cheap RF remotes could finally be implemented. Apple, get your AirPort to work with a PCI or PC Card interface, puh-leeze!
Remember...IR is (in the most basic sense) heat...so IR networking is just a NIC having hot flashes. The technology is tired and I sure hope that it's not still around in ten years.
My $1.00 - $0.98 not necessarily yours...
- JoeShmoe
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Yes, but we are not talking about rolling gently down a New Zealand hill...we are talking chucking ourselves over the side of a steep cliff like Jackie Chan did.
= -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
I think it would be a fantastic publicity stunt to bring one of those Zorbs to the US and then throw yourself down the Grand Canyon. Of course, your lawyers would probably not agree.
Out of curiousity...did the name "Zorb" stem from the fact that the giant air pockets ab-zorb the force of impact? Just curious...
- JoeShmoe
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-