Gadget

Tech Time Warp of the Week: The Commodore-64, 1983


The best selling computer of all time? It wasn’t the Macintosh. Or the Apple II. Or the IBM PC.

It was the Commodore-64, the computer-disguised-as-a-keyboard that made its debut in 1982.

According to the late Jack Tramiel — the man who founded Commodore International — the company was selling nearly a half million C64s a month when he was forced out of the operation in 1984, and by the time the machine finally gave up the ghost a decade later, he estimated, somewhere between 22 million and 30 million Commodores had found their way into the world.

“We made machines for the masses,” Tramiel said on the 25th anniversary of the C64, before nodding to the man sitting beside him, Apple co-founder Steve Wozniak. “They made machines for the classes.”

With the video below, you can return to the heyday of the C64. Your guide is the late Jim Butterfield, the mustachioed Canadian who built a career showing the world how to use this dirt-cheap home computer. Butterfield was the author of such books as Learning Machine Code Programming on the Commodore 64 (and other Commodore computers) and he founded one of the largest Commodore users’ groups in the world, but you could also find him on TVOntario, hosting a show called The Academy. And he turned up in Commodore training videos like this one.

Released in 1983, the original video ran for almost two hours. But, against our own better judgment, we’ve cut in down to about 9 minutes, giving you just the best of the lot. It’s a document not only of the C64, but of an earlier age of computing, an age when home computers were foreign objects to most people — when the “un-boxing” was such a scary thing.

Yes, Butterfield un-boxes the machine for you, but that’s just the beginning. He shows you everything from the I/O ports on the rear of the machine to the cassette tape reader you can use in lieu of a floppy drive to the memory chips inside the chassis.

We hope you enjoy it as much as we do.

 

link

http://www.wired.com/wiredenterprise/2013/03/tech-time-warp-commodore-64/

Enhanced by Zemanta

Viewed 25972 times by 1904 viewers

Be the first to comment - What do you think?
Posted by plates55 - March 15, 2013 at 9:32 am

Categories: Gadget   Tags: , , , , , , ,

7 Gadgets That Minted Money and Spawned Entire Industries

<< Previous | Next >>
dynatac
  • dynatac
  • regency_transistor_radio
  • zenith-space-command
  • atari-2600-joystick
  • barcode_scanner
  • polaroid_land_camera_360
  • 114147431_18c4cda572_b

 

To paraphrase Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart’s famous remarks about obscenity, the concept of the “gadget” is not easy to define—but we know a gadget when we see it. They capture our imaginations like little else. We become compulsively attached. The best gadgets fulfill basic needs we’re hard-pressed to describe, and because of that possess a magical ability to conjure money. They become talismans for economic vitality, as the gadgets in this gallery show.

While the “gadget” predates the invention of electronics, we stuck to devices that one way or another make use of electricity, in keeping with the 21st-century sense of the word. We also decided that for this list, a gadget was something a person had to be able to hold and more or less use with one hand, which ruled out laptops, for example. We picked gadgets that tipped toward the “gizmo” side of the continuum.

The gadgets we chose weren’t just popular. They didn’t just make their inventors or manufacturers a lot of money. These diminutive devices cracked open the earth, shoving tectonic plates east and west to build new mountains of economic activity. They demonstrate the profound capacity of the most unassuming bits of metal, glass and plastic to transmute the basic elements of labor and commerce into new sources of gold.

Above: Motorola DynaTAC

You could be forgiven if in the early 1990s you didn’t take investment advice from Zack Morris ofSaved by the Bell. But his conspicuously incessant yapping into his Motorola DynaTAC-style mobile phone put Zack in the vanguard of a fundamental change in the way human beings interact—a change that minted a trillion-dollar industry. The DynaTAC went on sale in 1984 after the FCC approved the 2.5-pound device as the world’s first consumer-grade cell phone. At a cost of nearly $4,000 for the handset alone, Zack’s DynaTAC signified him as the preppy, privileged rich kid. But his ugly brick turned out to be simply the first domino in a technological cascade that has spread across the world with amazing speed. Just 20 years post-Zack, a new World Bank study finds that 75 percent of the world’s population has access to mobile phones, including much of the developing world.

Photo: mikek/Flickr

Viewed 12179 times by 1213 viewers

Be the first to comment - What do you think?
Posted by plates55 - July 24, 2012 at 3:45 pm

Categories: Gadget   Tags:

podcasters, beg-a-thons, and bandwidth

NPR is famous for beg-a-thons, wherein they lament the high cost of production and distribution and, oh yeah, solicit funds.  It’s more pronounced now that they have started podcasting.  More popular podcasts (particularly those who are making a go at doing it for a living) also have the same complaints.

I am slowly being converted to the opinion that the bandwidth complaint is a fundraising ploy. If they were really concerned about the cost of bandwidth they would attempt to minimize the use of bandwidth.  But the bandwidth Jeremiahs are the same folks who apparently take no care to reduce their own footprint, putting out excessively, needlessly large audiofiles.  YES it’s their podcast and their content and they can put it out however they wish, but if you want to beg for donations to cover your costs then I will expect you to attempt to minimize your costs.

Consider these ideas for reducing bandwidth;  they take a bit of up-front scripting to make it work programatically, then it just motors along with zero added effort from the podcaster:

  1. Make a bittorrent feed available.  Your listeners will happily donate bandwidth to keep your content flowing.
  2. Publish two podcast feeds:  a feed with all the bells/whistles and a low-bandwidth feed.
  3. use a lower sampling rate.  44.1 is CD quality. Does your spoken word podcast require better-than-CD sampling?  For our purposes, the Nyquist Rate predicts sampling should be 2x the highest audio frequency.    Since the human ear hears roughly 20-20,000Hz, this explains the 44.1k sampling rate of CDs.  If your podcast does not contain high frequencies at the extremes of human hearing then it does not need a high samping rate.
  4. use Variable Bit Rate (VBR) rather than Constant Bit Rate (CBR).  This ensures no frame uses excessive bitrate to encode the audio.
  5. if you must use CBR, use a lower bitrate.
  6. if your podcast is mono, then encode as mono rather than stereo.  Joint stereo reduced some of the waste when distributing mono in stereo encodes, but it’s still a waste.
  7. Consider voice presets in your favorite encoder.  See the lame voice preset result below.  This single change would probably make the biggest difference in podcasting bandwidth for most content producers.
  8. Consider other formats.  If you insist on high bitrates, .ogg can shave a bit off the filesize (see below).   If are really serious, use a speech-specific format like speex.

A specific example

Here’s the last file I downloaded from the feed of FreedomainRadio, your friendly neighborhood anarcho-capitalist (recommended, btw):

$ file FDR_2096_Sunday_Show_19_Feb_2012.mp3
FDR_2096_Sunday_Show_19_Feb_2012.mp3: Audio file with ID3 version 2.3.0, contains: MPEG ADTS, layer III, v1, 128 kbps, 48 kHz, Monaural
For the purposes of re-encoding I decoded to .wav using mgp123.  The result was a 48kHz .wav file.  I resampled in some cases below to get 44.1kHz .wav files or lower.
101097  FDR_2096_Sunday_Show_19_Feb_2012.mp3
The original file is 101.1MB, sampled at 48kHz and CBR 128K, representing a 0% savings in bandwidth cost.  At least it’s mono, which is not something we can take for granted with voice podcasts.
Ok, so let’s do some encoding with more bandwidth-friendly options in LAME.
100576 Feb 21 01:14 fdrtest-lamevbr-noresample.mp3
 97379 Feb 21 01:28 fdrtest.lamevbr-resample.mp3
 53812 Feb 21 00:48 fdrtest-lame-voice-preset.mp3
Encoding VBR at the original wonky sampling rate is 100.58MB, representing 0.5% savings in bandwidth.  Not much, but would the podcaster rather keep half of 1% of bandwidth costs in his pocket?  You bet.
VBR at 44.1kHz is 97.38MB, 3.7% savings.  Now we are getting somewhere.  And the ‘cast should never have been distributed as 48kHz, anyhow.
LAME’s –preset voice flag is probably what podcasters should be using by default.  Notice it is 53.81MB, for a 46.8% savings in bandwidth.  With no added effort.  With little or no degradation in voice-only audio. My friends, this is what I call Good Enough.  Yes, music gets thin and weird with this preset but we are talking about voice here.
68536 Feb 21 01:08 fdrtest.ogg

Changing nothing in the original 48kHz .wav, encoding with ogg vorbis gives us a 68.54MB file, for a 32.2% savings.  Not bad, though one might lose some windoze/mac listeners.  But as a second feed…  Note that the .ogg advantage will decrease on lower quality sounds files.  Speex is what you use for those.

50746 fdrtest.48k-original-sample.speex
 14498  fdrtest.08k.speex
 26394 fdrtest.16k.speex
 33830 fdrtest.32k.speex
Speex is a codec made expressly for voice.  It is not good for music.  That VOIP app you use probably uses speex.  Speex is a minority codec;  it does not have large mindshare or even widespread technical adoption.  The default Android media app does not play speex as of this writing, and that’s a shame.  Speex also really only works well with certain predefined sampling rates:  32, 16, and 8kHz.
The first run is speex encoding the 48kHz wav.  It hated that rate and said so when invoked.  But it output a file of 50.75MB, for a savings of 49.8%.
The best use of speex for podcast is probably encoding 32kHz files.  Our trial resulted in 33.83MB, a savings of 66.5%.  Or even speex at 16kHz (73.9% savings).
For completeness I also tested speex at  8kHz (85.7% savings) but it’s not really practical.  8kHz is  listenable for short periods (like voicemail) but fatigues the ears after long exposure.   It sounds like a telephone.
Enhanced by Zemanta

Viewed 31180 times by 2305 viewers

Be the first to comment - What do you think?
Posted by plates55 - February 25, 2012 at 7:09 pm

Categories: Gadget   Tags: , , , , , , ,

Has Conduit hijacked your browser? Here are instructions fro deleting it>>!!!

Conduit sells search engines to sites that install the engine to hijack home  pages. I purchased a product from Ashampoo, and rejected the option to install  the Bing Ashampoo search bar, yet it was installed. The code of my hijacked home  page is http://search.conduit.com/?ctid=CT2475029&SearchSource=13. Conduit  evidently is in some partnership of revenue sharing of the hijacked home pages.  A Web of Trust search will show many complaints from users. Conduit Engine shows  up in my add/remove programs, but failed to uninstall, and the “uninstall” was  preceded by some direct script code that quickly popped up and then disappeared,  I assume so that the search bar cannot truly be uninstalled.
A Google  search of Conduit Engine will result in complaints by users who want to  uninstall the search engine, but are having problems.
Because my edit  varies greatly from the advertiser’s own description below, I will leave their  ad, until more research can be done, that justifies taking their advertising  down. Do be aware that they are associated with home page hijacking and spyware, to  persons who do not desire to have their engine. I have discovered this from Web  of Trust and Google. I hope to have my answer improved, once I have discovered  how to have their spyware removed. I welcome any answers that can improve upon  mine. I will also post how to remove the engine once I am successful.

Read more: http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_is_conduit_engine#ixzz1lbvRrEvj

 

Conduit bundles a hidden “toolbar” and other apps with other companies’ software,  pays them a kickback because they are willing to hide from the end user that  Conduit products are being allowed to install secretly alongside what the user  actually wanted.
The outcry is widespread but they seem to still be  getting away with it.
They pretend to address the issue here  http://www.conduit.com/Community/Forum/Questions.aspx?fpage=10&threadid=8423
But it is clear that the attempt is  disingenuous.http://forums.cnet.com/7723-6122_102-504164.html
In my  case, Bit Torrent did me the disservice. I thought they were still the open  source industry leader in free and reliable torrent apps, but I was clearly  mistaken. Had to uninstall secretly included addons in all browsers, as well as  removing toolbars and hidden client apps via Add/Remove function. Seems to have  worked. We’ll see.
Their claims are below…   ==================================
Read more: http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_is_conduit_engine#ixzz1lbvdmEny

 

HOW to delete:

If you are using Firefox, uninstall it from the addons.
Users are reporting that Revo Uninstaller having success in uninstalling Conduit. Download Revo Uninstaller Freeware – Free and Full Download – Uninstall software, remove programs, solve uninstall problems

If it still will not delete/

 

Boot computer up into safemode and then delete it.  That shouod work.

 

1) To get rid of the Toolbar / widget things, you need to go to Tools > Add-ons > Plugins, and uninstall the two entries pertaining to BitTorrent and Conduit. You will need to restart Firefox twice for this. Check that they are both gone when you have restarted.

2) To remove the Search Box hijack, click on the down-arrow next to the search box (it will probably have a Google symbol next to it) and select Manage Search Engines. Then select any search engine you don’t like the look of or recognise – you will be surprised how many there are – and for each one click Remove.

3) They were the easy bits. Now to remove the Conduit Engine itself.

You need to have Firefox shut down for this, as it restores some of the files upon shutdown to prevent corruption. First, locate you Roaming Application Profiles. You will need to be an administrator to do this, but assuming you are, in Explorer select Tools > Folder Options > View tab (if Tools is not visible, hit Alt) and ensure the radio button for “Show hidden files, folders and drives” is selected and “Hide protected operating system files (Recommended)” is unchecked (you will be asked to confirm this).

Find your profile. This will be located in your home drive (probably C:) in the “Users” or “Documents and Settings” (for XP) folder, so in my case it is C:\Users\Keith. Ensuring you have Folder View open, click on the {profile} folder and in the right-hand pane locate AppData (or Local Settings\Application Data for XP). Within this is the folder “Roaming”, within which is the Firefox Profile folder, e.g. {profile}\AppData\Roaming\Mozilla\Firefox\Profiles.

Beneath that is your random profile ID folder, which will be something like “1234abcd.default”. This folder I will call {fprofile}.

First, locate the pesky Conduit Engine folders, which contain most of the gubbins associated with this monster. Delete the folders {fprofile}\conduit and {fprofile}\CT2790392 (I can’t vouch for this exact number, but it seems to be standard at the moment).

Find the file {fprofile}\prefs.js and save a copy of this with a .backup extension. Right click on prefs.js and select “Edit”; this will (should) open the javascript file in Notepad.

You need to remove all references to Conduit:

First, delete every line beginning with the following:

user_pref("CT2790392. user_pref("CommunityToolbar.

Second, locate the following line:

user_pref("browser.search.defaulturl", "http://search.conduit.com/ResultsExt.aspx?ctid=CT2790392&SearchSource=3&q={searchTerms}");

Change it to (for Google search):

user_pref("browser.search.defaulturl", "http://www.google.com/search?lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&q=");

You will need to find the relevant command line for your own search engine, or just leave the second quotes empty for no URL bar searching.

Finally, locate the line:

user_pref("keyword.URL", "http://search.conduit.com/ResultsExt.aspx?ctid=CT2790392&q=");

and change it to (for Google): user_pref("keyword.URL", "http://www.google.com/search?lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&q=");

Again, you will need to find your own code for different search engines: I’m not a huge fan of Google, but at least you can just delete the cookie to remove your search history, or use Private Browsing.

 

 

Enhanced by Zemanta

Viewed 24463 times by 8895 viewers

1 comment - What do you think?
Posted by plates55 - February 6, 2012 at 9:24 am

Categories: Gadget   Tags: , , , , , , ,

CO Judge Orders Defendant to Provide Unencrypted “Copy” of Hard Drive (Non-Copyright Infringment Case)

CO Federal Criminal Case

First off, this is not a Copyright infringement Case.  This order comes from a Colorado Federal Judge in a Criminal case for real estate fraud.  Here is the article – http://www.informationweek.com/news/security/encryption/232500386  The CO court did not tell the defendant to give up her password, just provide a copy of the unencrypted hard drive.  This was based on information that the hard drive actually contained evidence and not a fishing expedition.

While I still have to read and review the details of this order, I believe this ruling will be appealed and fought at a much higher level.  The right against self-incrimination under the Fifth Amendment cannot be so easily trumped!  I believe the Supreme Court will be looking at this in the future.  Here is a recent article on the Supreme Court ruling that the use of a GPS tracking device on a suspect required a search warrant (not just the whim of an investigator or prosecutor)(http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9223646/Supreme_Court_GPS_ruling_called_a_win_for_privacy?taxonomyId=144).  Not the same issue, but still a core one concerning our rights.

So What Does This Mean For These Copyright Infringement Cases?

Besides being a criminal case (not a civil one), this order only came after a full investigation, court authorized searches, and forensic analysis.  None of these are even close to the copyright infringement cases brought by the Trolls.  The only forensic examination I know of for these cases was from a “consent to search” obtained by a Troll in a CA case (http://dietrolldie.com/2011/12/14/named-defendant-in-prenda-law-inc-boy-racer-inc-case-211-cv-03072-mce-kjn-eastern-district-of-ca-ammended-complaint/).  We are slowly advancing to “some” named Does and the Trolls are continuing to say they are going to a full trial.  This is more Troll BS in my opinion.  As Rob Cashman stated in his Blog, when it comes to a deposition (happens before the trial phase), that opens the door for the Trolls ”experts”  and methods to be deposed also.  This is going to open “Pandora’s box” for the Trolls and they know it.  Saying that, I want to go over a wonderful piece of software I have mentioned in previous posts – TrueCrypt.

“Well if the court is going to possibly make me provide an unencrypted copy of my hard drive, why use TrueCrypt?”

One feature of TrueCrypt is the ability to create a hidden volume.  This hidden volume is located within a standard TrueCrypt volume – AKA: “A dream within a dream” OR “Plans within plans.”  When I first read about hidden volumes years ago, I thought it was a really good option for people living in countries run by repressive governments.  I never thought it would be something to really consider using in the US.

The idea being you first create a standard TrueCrypt volume on your computer.  It can be an entire hard drive or just a TrueCrypt file.  Once the primary TrueCrypt volume is created, you create a smaller hidden TrueCrypt volume  within this one.  This smaller hidden volume does not have a detectable signature – it looks like random data.

Once the TrueCrypt volumes are created, you place all your sensitive files (Tax files, financial data, medical records, private pictures & movies of you and the wife (wink wink ;)  , etc.) in the “Known” volume.  In the hidden volume you now place any extremely sensitive files.  After adding your files to these volumes, you “dismount” the volumes until you need access.  What this hidden volume gives you is “plausible deniability.”

Plausible Deniability

Here is an example.  An adversary is looking at your system and they see you have TrueCrypt installed.  They may even determine which files and/or drives are TrueCrypt volumes.  This adversary forces you to open (unencrypt) the TrueCrypt volume.  They now see all you private information in the known TrueCrypt volume.  But they can’t see the hidden volume.  “But can’t a forensic examiner find the hidden volume????”  NO.  There is no indicators that a hidden volumes exists within the known volume.  The unused area within the known volume appears as  random data.  You have complied with the adversary and can plausibly deny any wrongdoing.

Now I know some people are going to say, “what are you hiding?” & “what are you afraid of?” I love the line that if you are not doing anything wrong, you have nothing to fear.  What a load of crap!  Please tell me why our founding fathers wrote the Bill of Rights? – Nice TechDirt article on the matter.

- It is because our history has shown over and over again that abuses of power do occur and will occur again.  The Trolls are abusing the courts by filing these mass John Does cases under the claim of protecting the rights of copyright owners.  This is not an effort to protect anyone, it is a business model to generate as much money as possible regardless if the public IP address owner did anything.

Enhanced by Zemanta

Viewed 11331 times by 1575 viewers

Be the first to comment - What do you think?
Posted by plates55 - January 27, 2012 at 7:23 am

Categories: Gadget   Tags:

Pac-Man Proved NP-Hard By Computational Complexity Theory

The classic ’80s arcade game turns out to be  equivalent to the travelling salesman problem, according a new analysis of the computational complexity of video games

 

 

In the last few years, a few dedicated mathematicians have begun to study the computational complexity of video games. Their goal is to determine the inherent difficulty of the games and how they might be related to each other and other problems.

Today, Giovanni Viglietta at the University if Pisa in Italy reveals a body of Herculean work in this area in which he classifies a large number of games from the 1980s and 90s including Pac-Man, Doom, Tron and many others.

Viglietta’s work involves several steps. The first is to determine the class of computational complexity to which the game belongs. Next, he works out whether knowing how to solve the game also allows you to solve many other problems in the same class, a property that complexity theorists call ‘hardness’. Finally, he determines whether the game is complete, meaning that it is one of the ‘hardest’ in its class.

His approach is relatively straightforward. He first works through a number of proofs showing that any video game with specific game-playing properties falls into a certain complexity class.

He then classifies the games according to game-playing properties they have.

For instance, one type of game involves a player moving through a  landscape visiting a number of locations. He calls this ‘location traversal’ and an example would be a game in which certain items are strewn around a landscape and the goal is to collect them all.

Some location traversal games allow each location to be visited only once. So-called single use path games might include downhill races.

He then uses graph theory to prove that any game exhibiting both location traversal and single-use paths is NP-hard, that’s the same class of complexity as the travelling salesman problem.

It turns out that Pac-Man falls into this category (the proof involves distributing power pills around the maze in a way that enforces single use paths).

He shows how games fall into other complexity categories too. For example, games that feature pressure pads to open and close doors are PSPACE-hard if each door is controlled by two pressure plates. Doom falls into this category.

And so on.

The resulting list is impressive. Here are a few of his results:

Boulder Dash (First Star Software, 1984) is NP-hard.
Deflektor (Vortex Software, 1987) is in L.
Prince of Persia (Brderbund, 1989) is PSPACE-complete.
Tron (Bally Midway, 1982) is NP-hard.

For the full list and reasoning, see the paper below.

That’s clearly been a labour of love for Viglietta, given the title of his paper: “Gaming Is A Hard Job, But Someone Has To Do It!”
Interestingly, he says this kind of analysis is unnecessary for modern games. “Most recent commercial games incorporate Turing-equivalent scripting languages that easily allow the design of undecidable puzzles as part of the gameplay,” he says.
In a way, that makes these older games all the more charming still

 

Enhanced by Zemanta

Viewed 10954 times by 1601 viewers

Be the first to comment - What do you think?
Posted by plates55 - January 26, 2012 at 4:23 pm

Categories: Gadget   Tags: , , , , , , ,

File/Drive Wiping

Occasionally there is some discussion on computer forensic examinations and how good is the software and the examiners.  A majority of the computer forensic examiners are well-trained and have good experience.  The same can be said for the tools they use.  There are a variety of commercial and open source forensic tools.  Probably the best know computer/network forensic tool is EnCaseA single copy/license for EnCase runs over a couple thousand dollars.  This is a good tool – Bottom line.

If you have some interest in computer forensics, here is site to look at – Forensic Focus

The following Forensic Focus article was interesting – Is  Your Client An Attorney Be  Aware Of Possible Constraints On Your Investigation Part 2

Single Pass is Good

Saying that, EnCase and other forensic tools do have limits.  In years past, I have played with (and tested) a variety of software, to include data encryption and file/drive wiping. The following was true for all the open source wiping tools I tested on standard hard drives: WHEN PROPERLY USED, nothing was recoverable.  This was for single-pass write.  Many of the wiping tools also have multiple-pass write options.  Some up to 35 write passes!  *** Don’t try this on a large GB hard drive – It will take a LONG TIME!  I would suggest that you only use multi-passes on single files.

Note:  With Solid State Hard Drives (SSD) there were some previous problems with some SSD not being wiped as expected.  If you use them, I would suggest reviewing the reports, as well as verifying wipes on them with a Disk/Hex editor.    The following links are to the “Anti-Forensics” Web site; their 2009 article stating single-pass wiping is good enough.

Yes it is a bit geeky, but provides lots of good information.  The author also addresses the common belief that even if overwritten, data can be recovered.  What this belief is usually referring to is some sort of microscopic examination of the “physical” storage plates.  This process is extremely costly, time-consuming, and the chance of finding the smoking gun is doubtful at best.

The Problem with Wiping Files

The problem lies in most operating systems have various records, temp files, caches, file/folder pointers, and registry entries that a user doesn’t know or think about.  These residue items can show what was once on a system, even when the original data is long gone and unrecoverable.  It can paint a possible picture.  I assume that this was the case based on reading a recent Prenda case filing where there was some sort of forensic examinationCase 2:11-CV-03072, Boy Racer v. Named Doe.

Based on the document, I believe Prenda obtained some sort of consent from the owner for the analysis.  If the examiner had found the “smoking gun” on the hard drive we would have seen the Doe settle (Dismissed with Prejudice) or it would have likely gone to trial.  As all we see in the amended complaint is the weak circumstantial evidence, I don’t believe the examiner found any movie(s), just pointers of such movies.

26. In a recent examination of the Macintosh computer used by Defendant during the times of his infringements, an updated version of Vuze appears in the “Applications” folder.  Through further inspection of Defendant’s computer, Plaintiff’s agents found Mp4 converter, StreamMe, and ServeToMe software that could enable an individual to convert a full-length video to a mobile device-compatible format; Toast10, which allows an individual to burn DVDs on Mac computers from videos downloaded over the Internet; and OmniDiskSweeper, a Mac utility program that helps users quickly identify and delete potentially infringing videos on one’s Mac computer in furtherance of evading liability for copyright infringement.

Just A Tool

Now I know the Trolls will say I’m telling people to use these tools to destroy evidence – I’m not.  The post is an attempt to dispel some rumors and give people accurate information.  I laugh at the suggestion that because someone has these tools, they are up to no good and guilty of being a pirate, thief, etc.  These are tools – plain and simple.  The same as a hand gun – what you do with it determines if it is used for good or bad.  If you have ever donated or sold a computer, I hope and pray you did wipe the hard drive first.

Enhanced by Zemanta

Viewed 8498 times by 1628 viewers

Be the first to comment - What do you think?
Posted by plates55 - January 24, 2012 at 8:21 am

Categories: Gadget   Tags: , , , , , , ,

MIT Genius Stuffs 100 Processors Into Single Chip

WESTBOROUGH, Massachusetts — Call Anant Agarwal’s work crazy, and you’ve made him a happy man.

Agarwal directs the Massachusetts Institute of Technology’s vaunted Computer Science and Artificial Intelligence Laboratory, or CSAIL. The lab is housed in the university’s Stata Center, a Dr. Seussian hodgepodge of forms and angles that nicely reflects the unhindered-by-reality visionary research that goes on inside.

Agarwal and his colleagues are figuring out how to build the computer chips of the future, looking a decade or two down the road. The aim is to do research that most people think is nuts. “If people say you’re not crazy,” Agarwal tells Wired, “that means you’re not thinking far out enough.”

Agarwal has been at this a while, and periodically, when some of his pie-in-the-sky research becomes merely cutting-edge, he dons his serial entrepreneur hat and launches the technology into the world. His latest commercial venture is Tilera. The company’s specialty is squeezing cores onto chips — lots of cores. A core is a processor, the part of a computer chip that runs software and crunches data. Today’s high-end computer chips have as many as 16 cores. But Tilera’s top-of-the-line chip has 100.

The idea is to make servers more efficient. If you pack lots of simple cores onto a single chip, you’re not only saving power. You’re shortening the distance between cores.

 

Today, Tilera sells chips with 16, 32, and 64 cores, and it’s scheduled to ship that 100-core monster later this year. Tilera provides these chips to Quanta, the huge Taiwanese original design manufacturer (ODM) that supplies servers to Facebook and — according to reports, Google. Quanta servers sold to the big web companies don’t yet include Tilera chips, as far as anyone is admitting. But the chips are on some of the companies’ radar screens.

Agarwal’s outfit is part of an ever growing movement to reinvent the server for the internet age. Facebook and Google are now designing their own servers for their sweeping online operations. Startups such as SeaMicro are cramming hundreds of mobile processors into servers in an effort to save power in the web data center. And Tilera is tackling this same task from different angle, cramming the processors into a single chip.

Tilera grew out of a DARPA- and NSF-funded MIT project called RAW, which produced a prototype 16-core chip in 2002. The key idea was to combine a processor with a communications switch. Agarwal calls this creation a tile, and he’s able to build these many tiles into a piece of silicon, creating what’s known as a “mesh network.”

“Before that you had the concept of a bunch of processors hanging off of a bus, and a bus tends to be a real bottleneck,” Agarwal says. “With a mesh, every processor gets a switch and they all talk to each other…. You can think of it as a peer-to-peer network.”

What’s more, Tilera made a critical improvement to the cache memory that’s part of each core. Agarwal and company made the cache dynamic, so that every core has a consistent copy of the chip’s data. This Dynamic Distributed Cache makes the cores act like a single chip so they can run standard software. The processors run the Linux operating system and programs written in C++, and a large chunk of Tilera’s commercialization effort focused on programming tools, including compilers that let programmers recompile existing programs to run on Tilera processors.

The end result is a 64-core chip that handles more transactions and consumes less power than an equivalent batch of x86 chips. A 400-watt Tilera server can replace eight x86 servers that together draw 2,000 watts. Facebook’s engineers have given the chip a thorough tire-kicking, and Tilera says it has a growing business selling its chips to networking and videoconferencing equipment makers. Tilera isn’t naming names, but claims one of the top two videoconferencing companies and one of the top two firewall companies.

An Army of Wimps

There’s a running debate in the server world over what are called wimpy nodes. Startups SeaMicro and Calxeda are carving out a niche for low-power servers based on processors originally built for cellphones and tablets. Carnegie Mellon professor Dave Andersen calls these chips “wimpy.” The idea is that building servers with more but lower-power processors yields better performance for each watt of power. But some have downplayed the idea, pointing out that it only works for certain types of applications.

Tilera takes the position that wimpy cores are okay, but wimpy nodes — aka wimpy chips — are not.

Keeping the individual cores wimpy is a plus because a wimpy core is low power. But if your cores are spread across hundreds of chips, Agarwal says, you run into problems: inter-chip communications are less efficient than on-chip communications. Tilera gets the best of both worlds by using wimpy cores but putting many cores on a chip. But it still has a ways to go.

There’s also a limit to how wimpy your cores can be. Google’s infrastructure guru, Urs Hölzle, published an influential paper on the subject in 2010. He argued that in most cases brawny cores beat wimpy cores. To be effective, he argued, wimpy cores need to be no less than half the power of higher-end x86 cores.

Tilera is boosting the performance of its cores. The company’s most recent generation of data center server chips, released in June, are 64-bit processors that run at 1.2 to 1.5 GHz. The company also doubled DRAM speed and quadrupled the amount of cache per core. “It’s clear that cores have to get beefier,” Agarwal says.

The whole debate, however, is somewhat academic. “At the end of the day, the customer doesn’t care whether you’re a wimpy core or a big core,” Agarwal says. “They care about performance, and they care about performance per watt, and they care about total cost of ownership, TCO.”

Tilera’s performance per watt claims were validated by a paper published by Facebook engineers in July. The paper compared Tilera’s second generation 64-core processor to Intel’s Xeon and AMD’s Opteron high end server processors. Facebook put the processors through their paces on Memcached, a high-performance database memory system for web applications.

According to the Facebook engineers, a tuned version of Memcached on the 64-core Tilera TILEPro64 yielded at least 67 percent higher throughput than low-power x86 servers. Taking power and node integration into account as well, a TILEPro64-based S2Q server with 8 processors handled at least three times as many transactions per second per Watt as the x86-based servers.

Despite the glowing words, Facebook hasn’t thrown its arms around Tilera. The stumbling block, cited in the paper, is the limited amount of memory the Tilera processors support. Thirty-two-bit cores can only address about 4GB of memory. “A 32-bit architecture is a nonstarter for the cloud space,” Agarwal says.

Tilera’s 64-bit processors change the picture. These chips support as much as a terabyte of memory. Whether the improvement is enough to seal the deal with Facebook, Agarwal wouldn’t say. “We have a good relationship,” he says with a smile.

While Intel Lurks

Intel is also working on many-core chips, and it expects to ship a specialized 50-core processor, dubbed Knights Corner, in the next year or so as an accelerator for supercomputers. Unlike the Tilera processors, Knights Corner is optimized for floating point operations, which means it’s designed to crunch the large numbers typical of high-performance computing applications.

In 2009, Intel announced an experimental 48-core processor code-named Rock Creek and officially labeled the Single-chip Cloud Computer (SCC). The chip giant has since backed off of some of the loftier claims it was making for many-core processors, and it focused its many-core efforts on high-performance computing. For now, Intel is sticking with the Xeon processor for high-end data center server products.

Dave Hill, who handles server product marketing for Intel, takes exception to the Facebook paper. “Really what they compared was a very optimized set of software running on Tilera versus the standard image that you get from the open source running on the x86 platforms,” he says.

The Facebook engineers ran over a hundred different permutations in terms of the number of cores allocated to the Linux stack, the networking stack and the Memcached stack, Hill says. “They really kinda fine tuned it. If you optimize the x86 version, then the paper probably would have been more apples to apples.”

Tilera’s roadmap calls for its next generation of processors, code-named Stratton, to be released in 2013. The product line will expand the number of processors in both directions, down to as few as four and up to as many as 200 cores. The company is going from a 40-nm to a 28-nm process, meaning they’re able to cram more circuits in a given area. The chip will have improvements to interfaces, memory, I/O and instruction set, and will have more cache memory.

But Agarwal isn’t stopping there. As Tilera churns out the 100-core chip, he’s leading a new MIT effort dubbed the Angstrom project. It’s one of four DARPA-funded efforts aimed at building exascale supercomputers. In short, it’s aiming for a chip with 1,000 cores.

Enhanced by Zemanta

Viewed 9166 times by 1883 viewers

1 comment - What do you think?
Posted by plates55 - January 23, 2012 at 2:38 pm

Categories: Gadget   Tags: , , , , , , ,

Could Your Car Be Hacked?

As soon as things get smart, something stupid also happens: they become vulnerable to attack. This was the case (though over-hyped, perhaps) of printers that cybersecurity researchers warned could be hijacked and theoretically set on fire. And now, argues Willie D. Jones of IEEE Spectrum, it could be the fate of our latest smart devices: our cars.

Cars are dangerous enough, without the problem of a cyberattack thrown in the mix. But unfortunately, researchers are coming up with several ways cars could be vulnerable to hackers. Wi-Fi, cellular, and Bluetooth connections exist in cars to help us communicate or be entertained as we drive, but a few research groups have already shown how these channels can be hijacked by someone with malicious intent.

One research team at UC San Diego and University of Washington demonstrated it was possible to do an absurd attack that could allow criminals to locate cars’ GPS coordinates, override their security systems, unlock their doors, and start their engines–in other words, a carjacker’s dream come true. A even worse scenario envisioned by one researcher: a hack that would disable your breaks while you’re driving on the highway.

All this doesn’t merely exist in the academic journals of a few university white-hat hackers. Some of this stuff has already happened. Jones points to a September report from McAfee that spoke of an instance where a disgruntled employee at a Texas car dealership was able to shut off the engines of 100 cars at once. A recent blog post from McAfee goes into detail on several other hacks, most of them white-hat, that would seem like the purview of science fiction, were it not for the fact that they’re real. Fiction has already been made fact, per McAfee: “In the movie ‘Live Free or Die Hard,’ actor Justin Long portrays a computer hacker who social-engineers the call center agent into remotely starting the car. That was Hollywood; yet at the recent Black Hat USA conference, security researchers Don Bailey and Mat Solnik expanded on earlier research to locate and attack car telematics systems.”

As in so many things, if Hollywood has imagined it, some clever hacker is already probably making it happen. Says McAfee’s Jimmy Shah: “As devices get smarter and more connected, we’re going to see more attacks targeted at them.” Let’s just hope we get smarter, too–smart enough to guard against these attacks before they happen.

Enhanced by Zemanta

Viewed 6098 times by 1201 viewers

Be the first to comment - What do you think?
Posted by plates55 - January 13, 2012 at 10:30 am

Categories: Gadget   Tags: , , , , , , ,

Electricity from the Air

California company Makani Power is developing a flying wind turbine designed to generate cheap renewable power.

 

 

Flying windmill: Multiple exposures show the flight pattern of the Makani Airborne Wind Turbine, built by Makani Power. The electricity-generating glider is attached to the ground by a carbon-fiber tether. The craft flies “crosswind,” or perpendicular to the direction of the wind, as a kite does. In early tests, prototypes have generated five kilowatts of electric power. Larger versions with 88-foot wingspans able to generate 600 kilowatts of power are planned.

Credit: Makani

Enhanced by Zemanta

Viewed 4842 times by 1419 viewers

Be the first to comment - What do you think?
Posted by plates55 - December 28, 2011 at 9:56 am

Categories: Gadget   Tags: , , , , , , ,

Next Page »