Get comfortable with Wireshark. And read all the Laura Chappell you can find. She's my go to for network errors, diagnosis, and everything that goes on the wire. Just be thankful you don't have to learn Token-Ring. No one will let you alone for a moment without pointing out to you how much it sucks.
"From now on it is not your job to do things. It is your job to make sure everyone else can do their jobs."
Just an unwanted observation, but star programmers who don't "make sure everyone else can do their jobs." by using the systems and applications they developed are either not start programmers, or are working for idiots.
So our OP is either already used to making sure his or her stuff makes others productive, or they are being promoted necause they have a relationship with the boss.
Either way, I'm pretty sure this is not a promotion, despite the OP's hopes.
The obvious part I see is that modulating the beam in a CRT could be controlled and provide an effect analogous to a pixel in a pixel-based display (dots on screen), so similar generation of character data becomes useful. And Woz also figured that out. He was just late, having no need to when he was so much younger.
I disagree. Perhaps instead of 'once the problem is discovered' you restated it as 'once the problem is properly understood', then I'm on with ya. But 'discovering' a problem does not guarantee an 'obvious' solution. Several 'problems' are out there, well discovered, and not yet solved by even a nonobvious means.
Don't try to oversimplify the complex.
And if they had "familiar knowledge of such a thing as digital computers, ROM, CRTs, and pixel-based display output" in the 60s, which much actually did exist, of course the problem of character display on TV becomes very very solvable. In fact, it was. Woz seemed to be implying that the patent was improper because it was already obvious. I disagree, despite the other technology existing. You're in the same trap as many - it sure seems not just obvious now, but obvious that the solutio would be found to be 'obvious' before it was found.
LCDs would require pixel-based characters, and raster displays are similar enough that someone could have thought "hmm, characters in flat-panels need to be dots, we do dots in TV, how do we do characters in TV?"
In hindsight, it seems obvious to me. And RCA was working with LCDs primarily to develop flat TVs.
While LCDs and TVs were a ways from convergence in the 60s and 70s, the concepts of character display were not.
This, good sir, is the essence of much excellent engineering. The solution, once discovered, is obvious.
Finding the obvious is all the work.
And just an aside, but since titling was probably a nasty bit of work in early television, RCA would have been thinking about how to do this in a much better way than printed cards held up to the camera. RCA was inventing LCDs in 1962. A character generator concept would have been 'obvious' then, and the application to television not far behind in hindsight. Patent 33456458 was issued in 1963, patent 3426344 filed in 1967, somewhat contemporaneous with LCD development. Woz is off-base on this one. Not much, but he is off-base.
Besides, the hope that RCA wasn't exploring television technology in the 60s is a faint hope indeed. Their LCD work was prescient, superceded only by Sharp and their success in making it commercially viable.
Oscilloscopes are heavy-duty? A Time-Domain Reflectometer is heavy-duty, if it has plenty of output modes. A spectrum analyzer with bandwidth up into W band is heavy-duty.
Plasma cutters are cool tho. If they have a glass furnace and a hot shop, now we're talkin.. Want.
The worst users are those that keep signing up under new names and continuing the harrassment, or those that exploit your 'anonymous' features and just keep it up. Rather than play whack-a-mole and inactivating their accounts to watch them come back like a cockroach, 'misery' gives them pain for their bad behavior.
Of course they will figure out what's on, and either leave or re-register, but the stupid and slow might think you're an ID10T admin, and give up on your stupid broken website. Which is also a good outcome.
As a longtime/.'r, I've seen plenty of griefers come and go. Ignoring them so far has worked, but some day we'll get one or more that just won't quit. Fortunately the volume here is so big that a few don't make for a substantial impact.
And a misery module for/. won't work. It would be indistinguishable from a site upgrade.
Is this so simple? If Mediacom is intercepting a request to Google Search and rewriting it or diverting it to their search engine, doesn't this sound like fraud? And if they offer the opt-out, that's just incompetence or fraud also.
Incompetence doesn't shield you from liability. Fraud speaks for itself.
Cox intercepts a lot of 404s and DNS lookup problems, but not all, and it give you a big Cox logo on the page with their 'helpful' referrals. So far they don't seem to be rewriting search pages.
But if they did, why won't Google et al sue to tell them to leave my request alone, if I wanted to opt-out? Mediacom is playing with fire here, I think, though so far no one seems to have lit the fuse.
Yes, the modern battlefield is saturated with RF. EW operations now include cellphone and GPS manipulation, so you can safely assume that if we want to listen in on Al Queda cell calls in Afghanistan, we can. And probably triangulate the phone location at least as well as Apple can with a stock iPhone & IOS4(?).
But a battle-ready smartphone doesn't need to be limited to conventional spectrum. And with a decent encrypted radio, such as is being used already, communications can be relatively safe. Relatively, I say, since with time and resources most anything can be figured out. One of the goals of an EW operation is to deny the enemy the information they seek within a useful time period. If they work out which of the targets is the strike aircraft after it's delivered its munitions and exited the theater, well, that's nice glad you figured out who just flattened your CP good buddy.
I expect JBC-P will be a well hardened battlefield comm system, and will survive in a hostile RF environment. I epxect it will be delivered with multiple options, satellite, terrestrial, and other RF modes. Even probably link into other network on the battlefield, is it DL16 the Air force is using now for their data networking, shared with the Navy and others?
Sounds like an excellent approach. Android can offer fairly quick development cycles with good talent, and it's being actively improved daily. Requirements are low, it's as open as you're gonna get, and having an enhanced device means troops could be getting better mapping, more intel, and more reliable comm. In battle, sometimes it's who sees who first. More info = success.
- Poor selections from the menus - Buffering - Half or more of the TV I wanted woudn't load - Movie selection was laughable. Seriously flawed, stuff you can't even find at Blockbuster. - Interface was painful.
So far they haven't asked me to pay for it, but they come to get the Lenovo mini-pc and stuff, and leave me the sucky Cisco DOCSIS3/WLAN modem/router gateway thing that disconnects at will. At least I get the passwords so I can put my file sharing back up.
Overall Coaster did not impress me. But I will start looking at streaming. Now, of my fav shows, what will I find streamed?
>The Event >Dancing With the Stars >Fringe >Firefly >Fox News >Food Network (Don't judge me, ok?) >Days of Our Lives (wife)
Not even a shot of the drive after the crush. It gets withdrawn out the back of the crusher, no idea if it actually did anything butcrack the PCB. Lame.
As several other posters have pointed out, in my work environment, your server would have been confiscated already. I doubt that you would have been able to purchase such a thing here at all. And any complaints about being unable to get the services you desired, or how it was a 'simple' task, or any other excuse would have been met with silence.
And you would have been on the carpet with at least three senior VPs, along with your own VP explaining how they permitted the attempt. Just the attempt.
Around here, you would have had to install it all on a desktop PC you snagged for some other purpose. It would have lasted a few hours until someone from network services came around with a cart and bolt cutters to snip off the cable lock. And a security guard.
Now, if it were MY network, and I were either the great high Administrator or director, I would have demanded immediate root access or disconnection, per pre-existing policy. It's kinda like paying for the insurance on my car, but having no say in who drives it. I'd like to at least know who crashed it was permitted to drive, and no, I would not let the local meth heads take it for a spin to Mexico. Either your IT department is in charge or they are not. And no, you can't have your own Internet gateway, even if you promise to never ever interconnect it. Do you not know what HIPAA is all about?
Look, before you go any further, I don't think that any money I spend on Internet access goes to supporting Internet 2 or Internet II or whatever you call it. In fact, I'm pretty sure taxpayer subsidies are no longer, if they ever were, covering most of the cost of the system. Universities etc. have more than enough incentive to fund the development and operation of a highest-speed Internet. It was both DARPA's desire for a resiliant communications system and unviersities seeking to build a network to leverage computing resources that led to the initial Internet, and commercializaiton has only led to its expansion, performance improvements, and coverage.
Since networks increase in value as more connections are made (was it Metcalfe that said that?), more Internet use begat more and more use. Becoming affordable meant the network became more valuable. I remember paying more than I do now for a BRI, and getting much less than I do now for my home service, much less the utility offered by mobile service.
I'm not complaining about Internet II, merely pointing out that asking my opinion on it is specious. Like most of us, we dunno how well it works, or if it is that useful, or anything. We rely on the reports of strangers. Ask them.
But this is all designed to drive page views anyways...
Actually, I didn't hear much of Tea Party organizers using the term 'tea bagger' in referfence to their membership. The initial references to tea bags was the move for April 15, 2009, to send tea bags to the White House in protest of taxes and spending/ As soon as the derogatory references were undertstood, the media used the term to refer to the Tea Party movement, and of course their detractors preferred to use the term in all manner of reference. Tea Party members both stopped using the 'tea bag' metaphorically and literally, and complained against those who used it in the intentionally slanderous meaning.
So, really, after the tea bag protest, tea bags fell so out of favor with the Tea Party that any justificaion of using such terms is a fabrication and intended to be hurtful and inflammatory. To claim otherwise is disingenuous.
Hey! If hooking me up to Internet II had the same consequences as the last time I was hooked up to a university-centric system, there would be weeping and gnashing of teeth, and ultimately the entire state of Arizona would be disconnected from the Internet until I was expunged and prevented from further annoying the professors and grad students/TAs.
That was fun. I'd do it again if it wasn't so disturbing to so many otherwise decent people, but the few cannot tolerate such behavior, and care not that their actions impacted so many. Hehe. Ask me some time, I might tell you about the glory days on NovaNET.
At least I got GPS, Velcro, and some prescription meds out of those.
And I'm not complaining about paying for Internet II, just pointing out that it doesn't seem to impact me directly, and you STILL don't offer me any example of the beneifts. You could, but you don't. You just perpetuate the response that I must be a Luddite, right-winger, or daft to not embrace Internet II as a remarkable achievement and worthy of my admiration and support.
And you still don't seem to know if I do support it or not. Like you care.
Slashdot Mirror
Get comfortable with Wireshark. And read all the Laura Chappell you can find. She's my go to for network errors, diagnosis, and everything that goes on the wire. Just be thankful you don't have to learn Token-Ring. No one will let you alone for a moment without pointing out to you how much it sucks.
"From now on it is not your job to do things. It is your job to make sure everyone else can do their jobs."
Just an unwanted observation, but star programmers who don't "make sure everyone else can do their jobs." by using the systems and applications they developed are either not start programmers, or are working for idiots.
So our OP is either already used to making sure his or her stuff makes others productive, or they are being promoted necause they have a relationship with the boss.
Either way, I'm pretty sure this is not a promotion, despite the OP's hopes.
The obvious part I see is that modulating the beam in a CRT could be controlled and provide an effect analogous to a pixel in a pixel-based display (dots on screen), so similar generation of character data becomes useful. And Woz also figured that out. He was just late, having no need to when he was so much younger.
Timing is, indeed, everything.
I disagree. Perhaps instead of 'once the problem is discovered' you restated it as 'once the problem is properly understood', then I'm on with ya. But 'discovering' a problem does not guarantee an 'obvious' solution. Several 'problems' are out there, well discovered, and not yet solved by even a nonobvious means.
Don't try to oversimplify the complex.
And if they had "familiar knowledge of such a thing as digital computers, ROM, CRTs, and pixel-based display output" in the 60s, which much actually did exist, of course the problem of character display on TV becomes very very solvable. In fact, it was. Woz seemed to be implying that the patent was improper because it was already obvious. I disagree, despite the other technology existing. You're in the same trap as many - it sure seems not just obvious now, but obvious that the solutio would be found to be 'obvious' before it was found.
Wrong. Solutions are not inevitable.
LCDs would require pixel-based characters, and raster displays are similar enough that someone could have thought "hmm, characters in flat-panels need to be dots, we do dots in TV, how do we do characters in TV?"
In hindsight, it seems obvious to me. And RCA was working with LCDs primarily to develop flat TVs.
While LCDs and TVs were a ways from convergence in the 60s and 70s, the concepts of character display were not.
This, good sir, is the essence of much excellent engineering. The solution, once discovered, is obvious.
Finding the obvious is all the work.
And just an aside, but since titling was probably a nasty bit of work in early television, RCA would have been thinking about how to do this in a much better way than printed cards held up to the camera. RCA was inventing LCDs in 1962. A character generator concept would have been 'obvious' then, and the application to television not far behind in hindsight. Patent 33456458 was issued in 1963, patent 3426344 filed in 1967, somewhat contemporaneous with LCD development. Woz is off-base on this one. Not much, but he is off-base.
Besides, the hope that RCA wasn't exploring television technology in the 60s is a faint hope indeed. Their LCD work was prescient, superceded only by Sharp and their success in making it commercially viable.
I read about this right here in January. And February.
Seriously, how many times can you recycle the same story with slightly (and I mean slightly) different nuances, but the same frakking story?
Next thing you know, I'll be reading another story on this with the angle 'women and children affected the most'.
Slashdot is becoming the USA Today of the Internet. Isn't it time for another site upgrade?
It's us.
I quoted the reporter's lameness. I think the shop is probably even better equipped than the reporter(s) thought or could know.
You missed the point. Sheesh, do I have to use crayons here now?
Oscilloscopes are heavy-duty? A Time-Domain Reflectometer is heavy-duty, if it has plenty of output modes. A spectrum analyzer with bandwidth up into W band is heavy-duty.
Plasma cutters are cool tho. If they have a glass furnace and a hot shop, now we're talkin.. Want.
The worst users are those that keep signing up under new names and continuing the harrassment, or those that exploit your 'anonymous' features and just keep it up. Rather than play whack-a-mole and inactivating their accounts to watch them come back like a cockroach, 'misery' gives them pain for their bad behavior.
Of course they will figure out what's on, and either leave or re-register, but the stupid and slow might think you're an ID10T admin, and give up on your stupid broken website. Which is also a good outcome.
As a longtime /.'r, I've seen plenty of griefers come and go. Ignoring them so far has worked, but some day we'll get one or more that just won't quit. Fortunately the volume here is so big that a few don't make for a substantial impact.
And a misery module for /. won't work. It would be indistinguishable from a site upgrade.
Is this so simple? If Mediacom is intercepting a request to Google Search and rewriting it or diverting it to their search engine, doesn't this sound like fraud? And if they offer the opt-out, that's just incompetence or fraud also.
Incompetence doesn't shield you from liability. Fraud speaks for itself.
Cox intercepts a lot of 404s and DNS lookup problems, but not all, and it give you a big Cox logo on the page with their 'helpful' referrals. So far they don't seem to be rewriting search pages.
But if they did, why won't Google et al sue to tell them to leave my request alone, if I wanted to opt-out? Mediacom is playing with fire here, I think, though so far no one seems to have lit the fuse.
Their typewriters are quite excellent, the equal of any.
However, their computer keyboads, made by someone else, and their personal typing skills, appear to be lacking somewhat.
So let them stick to making.
Really, iPhones and Andoid phones ( I have an Android) keep track of the phone's location on a regular basis. This is not in dispute.
Of course Jobs and Google have to deny this is actually tracking 'anyone'. The legal implications are obvious.
Yes, the modern battlefield is saturated with RF. EW operations now include cellphone and GPS manipulation, so you can safely assume that if we want to listen in on Al Queda cell calls in Afghanistan, we can. And probably triangulate the phone location at least as well as Apple can with a stock iPhone & IOS4(?).
But a battle-ready smartphone doesn't need to be limited to conventional spectrum. And with a decent encrypted radio, such as is being used already, communications can be relatively safe. Relatively, I say, since with time and resources most anything can be figured out. One of the goals of an EW operation is to deny the enemy the information they seek within a useful time period. If they work out which of the targets is the strike aircraft after it's delivered its munitions and exited the theater, well, that's nice glad you figured out who just flattened your CP good buddy.
I expect JBC-P will be a well hardened battlefield comm system, and will survive in a hostile RF environment. I epxect it will be delivered with multiple options, satellite, terrestrial, and other RF modes. Even probably link into other network on the battlefield, is it DL16 the Air force is using now for their data networking, shared with the Navy and others?
Sounds like an excellent approach. Android can offer fairly quick development cycles with good talent, and it's being actively improved daily. Requirements are low, it's as open as you're gonna get, and having an enhanced device means troops could be getting better mapping, more intel, and more reliable comm. In battle, sometimes it's who sees who first. More info = success.
And it was disappointing.
- Poor selections from the menus
- Buffering
- Half or more of the TV I wanted woudn't load
- Movie selection was laughable. Seriously flawed, stuff you can't even find at Blockbuster.
- Interface was painful.
So far they haven't asked me to pay for it, but they come to get the Lenovo mini-pc and stuff, and leave me the sucky Cisco DOCSIS3/WLAN modem/router gateway thing that disconnects at will. At least I get the passwords so I can put my file sharing back up.
Overall Coaster did not impress me. But I will start looking at streaming. Now, of my fav shows, what will I find streamed?
>The Event
>Dancing With the Stars
>Fringe
>Firefly
>Fox News
>Food Network (Don't judge me, ok?)
>Days of Our Lives (wife)
And there are more.
Anyways, I'll be looking.
Precisely. Twitter is not a tool for debate, reasoned or not. It is a tool for spew.
Not even a shot of the drive after the crush. It gets withdrawn out the back of the crusher, no idea if it actually did anything butcrack the PCB. Lame.
As several other posters have pointed out, in my work environment, your server would have been confiscated already. I doubt that you would have been able to purchase such a thing here at all. And any complaints about being unable to get the services you desired, or how it was a 'simple' task, or any other excuse would have been met with silence.
And you would have been on the carpet with at least three senior VPs, along with your own VP explaining how they permitted the attempt. Just the attempt.
Around here, you would have had to install it all on a desktop PC you snagged for some other purpose. It would have lasted a few hours until someone from network services came around with a cart and bolt cutters to snip off the cable lock. And a security guard.
Now, if it were MY network, and I were either the great high Administrator or director, I would have demanded immediate root access or disconnection, per pre-existing policy. It's kinda like paying for the insurance on my car, but having no say in who drives it. I'd like to at least know who crashed it was permitted to drive, and no, I would not let the local meth heads take it for a spin to Mexico. Either your IT department is in charge or they are not. And no, you can't have your own Internet gateway, even if you promise to never ever interconnect it. Do you not know what HIPAA is all about?
Look, before you go any further, I don't think that any money I spend on Internet access goes to supporting Internet 2 or Internet II or whatever you call it. In fact, I'm pretty sure taxpayer subsidies are no longer, if they ever were, covering most of the cost of the system. Universities etc. have more than enough incentive to fund the development and operation of a highest-speed Internet. It was both DARPA's desire for a resiliant communications system and unviersities seeking to build a network to leverage computing resources that led to the initial Internet, and commercializaiton has only led to its expansion, performance improvements, and coverage.
Since networks increase in value as more connections are made (was it Metcalfe that said that?), more Internet use begat more and more use. Becoming affordable meant the network became more valuable. I remember paying more than I do now for a BRI, and getting much less than I do now for my home service, much less the utility offered by mobile service.
I'm not complaining about Internet II, merely pointing out that asking my opinion on it is specious. Like most of us, we dunno how well it works, or if it is that useful, or anything. We rely on the reports of strangers. Ask them.
But this is all designed to drive page views anyways...
Actually, I didn't hear much of Tea Party organizers using the term 'tea bagger' in referfence to their membership. The initial references to tea bags was the move for April 15, 2009, to send tea bags to the White House in protest of taxes and spending/ As soon as the derogatory references were undertstood, the media used the term to refer to the Tea Party movement, and of course their detractors preferred to use the term in all manner of reference. Tea Party members both stopped using the 'tea bag' metaphorically and literally, and complained against those who used it in the intentionally slanderous meaning.
So, really, after the tea bag protest, tea bags fell so out of favor with the Tea Party that any justificaion of using such terms is a fabrication and intended to be hurtful and inflammatory. To claim otherwise is disingenuous.
And without revenue, that ability would be moot. Actually, without revenue, there is also no ability.
I'm not fixated on cost, but I realize that the commercialization of the Internet is what has fueled its growth. Literally fueled it with money.
And I do recognize that I pay essentially $70/mo for Internet access, both static and mobile. It ain't cheap.
Unrestricted growth? We pay for that. Internet II doesn't impact spending on infrastructure. It might impact design, but iron costs.
Hey! If hooking me up to Internet II had the same consequences as the last time I was hooked up to a university-centric system, there would be weeping and gnashing of teeth, and ultimately the entire state of Arizona would be disconnected from the Internet until I was expunged and prevented from further annoying the professors and grad students/TAs.
That was fun. I'd do it again if it wasn't so disturbing to so many otherwise decent people, but the few cannot tolerate such behavior, and care not that their actions impacted so many. Hehe. Ask me some time, I might tell you about the glory days on NovaNET.
At least I got GPS, Velcro, and some prescription meds out of those.
And I'm not complaining about paying for Internet II, just pointing out that it doesn't seem to impact me directly, and you STILL don't offer me any example of the beneifts. You could, but you don't. You just perpetuate the response that I must be a Luddite, right-winger, or daft to not embrace Internet II as a remarkable achievement and worthy of my admiration and support.
And you still don't seem to know if I do support it or not. Like you care.