Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Network Adapter Keeps Talking While a PC Is Asleep

timothy posted more than 5 years ago | from the would-make-me-feel-better-about-keeping-a-server-on dept.

Networking 188

Al writes "Researchers at Microsoft and the University of California, San Diego have developed a network adapter that lets a computer enter sleep mode without disrupting the network connection. The adapter, dubbed Somniloquy (meaning to talk in one's sleep), consists of a gumstix running embedded Linux, 64MB of RAM and a 2G SD memory card, connected via USB. The adapter keeps the network connection going and the researchers have also developed a simplified IM client and bittorrent client that carry out more complicated tasks autonomously, only waking the computer if, for example, an actualy IM is received or a download is completed."

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

fp posts first (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#29125159)

while you lick my asshole clean.

So in other words... (5, Insightful)

Darkness404 (1287218) | more than 5 years ago | (#29125179)

So in other words you still have a computer running, just not your main computer.

Panties STINK! (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#29125253)

Panties Stink!
They really, really stink!
Sometimes they're red, sometimes they're green,
Sometimes they're white or black or pink
Sometimes they're satin, sometimes they're lace
Sometimes they're cotton and soak up stains
But at the end of the day, it really makes you think
Wooooooo-wheeeee! Panties stink!

Sometimes they're on the bathroom floor
Your girlfriend- what a whore!
Sometimes they're warm and wet and raw
From beneath the skirt of your mother-in-law
Brownish stains from daily wear
A gusset full of pubic hair
Just make sure your nose is ready
For the tang of a sweat-soaked wedgie
In your hand a pair of drawers
With a funky feminine discharge
Give your nose a rest, fix yourself a drink
cause wooooooo-wheeeeeee! panties stink!

Re:Panties STINK! (1)

ciderVisor (1318765) | more than 5 years ago | (#29126631)

You need help.

Wooooooo-wheeeeeeee, you need help !

Re:So in other words... (2, Funny)

Shakrai (717556) | more than 5 years ago | (#29125323)

So in other words you still have a computer running, just not your main computer.

How's it gonna help those of us that download more than 2 gigabytes of porn^Wlinux distros at a time?

Re:So in other words... (4, Insightful)

tepples (727027) | more than 5 years ago | (#29125797)

How's it gonna help those of us that download more than 2 gigabytes of porn^Wlinux distros at a time?

Wake the host PC after each GB and flush the buffer.

Re:So in other words... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#29126483)

wow that is a sentence full of dirty words that I am too intoxicated to rearrange to in a more hilarious manner. Instead, I'm going to deflect back to big brutherz and p.c. phonz home etc.

Re:So in other words... (1)

mrphoton (1349555) | more than 5 years ago | (#29125539)

To be hoist, one of the main reasons I turn my office computer off when I go home is so it is not hacked by script kiddies at night - I don't think I need a non updating embedded linux system running all the time on my network.

Re:So in other words... (4, Insightful)

SatanicPuppy (611928) | more than 5 years ago | (#29125671)

One of the reasons I don't turn off my office computer at night is because, if some pathetic script kiddie walks on water all the way through thousands of hours of preventative labour and hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of top tier hardware all the way down to my desktop windows PC, I want to see it first thing, so I won't have had my coffee before I stab myself through the eyeball with a ballpoint.

Seriously? You think you're safer by having it off 16 hours a day? Moreover, your tech people think that it's acceptable to have an environment where the security precaution is to turn off your computer when you're not using it?

Wow. Just...Wow...

Re:So in other words... (1)

Darkness404 (1287218) | more than 5 years ago | (#29125747)

Seriously? You think you're safer by having it off 16 hours a day? Moreover, your tech people think that it's acceptable to have an environment where the security precaution is to turn off your computer when you're not using it?

You would be surprised of how often tech "pros" do something stupid. I've had some people not update Windows because it might "mess something up" then others still have IE 6 because some outdated intranet program needs it, other times they have had non-updated anti-virus, run everything as admin, and a whole lot of other random bad ideas.

Re:So in other words... (1)

Tdawgless (1000974) | more than 5 years ago | (#29125967)

I only run an anti-virus once every six months or so... I still have never gotten a virus. Also, it's bad practice to update 'just because'. Period. 80% of outages come from a Change and much of it is unnecessary. Not saying you shouldn't apply important updates, but you shouldn't apply EVERYTHING just for the sake of it. (As a side note, people who brag about high uptime is equally retarded for the opposite reason... they're usually the one missing the important updates)

Re:So in other words... (1)

Darkness404 (1287218) | more than 5 years ago | (#29126489)

I only run an anti-virus once every six months or so... I still have never gotten a virus.

-you- might have not gotten a virus, but I'm sure I'm safe to say that you know a heck of a lot more about computers than the average employee using a computer. Most of them just need a "click here and run the program to see a cute kitten" and they will install a trojan willingly.

Also, it's bad practice to update 'just because'. Period. 80% of outages come from a Change and much of it is unnecessary. Not saying you shouldn't apply important updates, but you shouldn't apply EVERYTHING just for the sake of it. (As a side note, people who brag about high uptime is equally retarded for the opposite reason... they're usually the one missing the important updates)

Sure, but a lot of them I would say were missing the "important updates", I mean, seriously, who still has XP Service Pack 1 installed... in 2008? Apparently the tech guys in one of my jobs I was at for a while.

Re:So in other words... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#29125985)

See, aside from the un-updated antivirus, the ideas you talk about are good ones.

Good companies pay to have something called a "test" system. You download the patches, test them, and if it breaks something you either patch the broken part or don't install the patch that will break everything else.

Good companies don't immediately jump to the next version number - that's why Linux has a "Stable" and "Unstable" version. Stable is the rock-solid, workhorse, thousands-of-hours-of-uptime ready one. Unstable is the We-think-this-works,-run-it-for-a-few-months version.

Re:So in other words... (1)

SatanicPuppy (611928) | more than 5 years ago | (#29126045)

Sure...On the desktop. That's why we still get viruses from people clicking on bad webpages, etc.

But there is nothing going around (that anyone has identified) that will blow through firewall after firewall and install it self across locked down subnets.

I can't even remember the last time I saw an infection that wasn't caused by a user doing something silly, and the only time it "spreads" is when the user tells other users about the stupid site they went to and they go too.

There is no excuse not to have tight firewalls, hardcore email virus scanning/.exe filtering, etc, etc. All that stuff can be done with OSS and freeware. If people are infecting office PCs without the user being present, that's a HUGE problem.

Re:So in other words... (1)

loteck (533317) | more than 5 years ago | (#29125869)

thousands of hours of preventative labour and hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of top tier hardware

Yes, how silly of his "tech people" to think that, especially since every office has tech people, and has that same expensive investment in their complex IT infrastructure, right!?

Don't be obtuse. If your average under-served office with 1-5 (most likely infected) Windows PCs would shut down more often, it'd be better for both the environment and IT security as a whole.

Re:So in other words... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#29125971)

I'd say it's pretty much 100% certain that the machine will not get pwned while he's away from his desk. Not only that, but why SHOULD he leave it on all night? Electricity may be cheap, but it's not free - and most of the inexpensive office PCs I've encountered get a severe case of the stupids if you try to hibernate them.

Re:So in other words... (4, Funny)

Dogtanian (588974) | more than 5 years ago | (#29126055)

You think you're safer by having it off 16 hours a day?

Dude, if I was having it off [urbandictionary.com] for 16 hours a day, I wouldn't give a flying **** about some shitty PC security!

Re:So in other words... (2, Informative)

Luke has no name (1423139) | more than 5 years ago | (#29126377)

But it IS safer to have your computer off than on.

Moreover, your tech people think that it's acceptable to have an environment where the security precaution is to turn off your computer when you're not using it?

If it is THE precaution, then it would be bad. Having it as A precaution, if you don't have a strong firewall/gateway, isn't bad.

Re:So in other words... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#29125651)

In other words, if you're a PC, you won't need a wife to keep talking while you're asleep.

Yo Dawg (4, Funny)

decipher_saint (72686) | more than 5 years ago | (#29125191)

We put a computer on your computer so you can download while you download...

Re:Yo Dawg (4, Funny)

Brian Gordon (987471) | more than 5 years ago | (#29125309)

The question is whether the NIC can go into a power saving mode and be awoken by an even simpler device when a packet comes in.

Re:Yo Dawg (-1, Redundant)

oldhack (1037484) | more than 5 years ago | (#29125355)

Yo Dawg, we put a device on your device so you can download while you download...

Re:Yo Dawg (2, Informative)

ichthus (72442) | more than 5 years ago | (#29125681)

I use Wake On Lan [wikipedia.org] to wake my PC. The same thing should work for this.

Re:Yo Dawg (4, Insightful)

tepples (727027) | more than 5 years ago | (#29125853)

I use Wake On Lan [wikipedia.org] to wake my PC. The same thing should work for this.

Some applications, such as BitTorrent, require a continuous stream of packets. If you can offload processing these packets to another device that draws less electric power and keep the PC turned off until the device is ready to commit its changes, you can save money on your electric bill.

Re:Yo Dawg (1)

sukotto (122876) | more than 5 years ago | (#29126239)

well, there are lots of turtles down there. one of them can turn it on.

Hooray! (0, Redundant)

jornak (1377831) | more than 5 years ago | (#29125197)

Now I can download porn... and save power!

Slashdot editor's demonstrate..... (5, Informative)

jdb2 (800046) | more than 5 years ago | (#29125207)

.....their incompetency once again.

Apparently Timothy doesn't understand how to use Google [google.com] , or, dare I say, even the Slashdot "Old Stories" search [slashdot.org]

Almost the exact same story was posted on Monday, April 27 . [slashdot.org]

jdb2

Re:Slashdot editor's demonstrate..... (1)

MilesTails (1413987) | more than 5 years ago | (#29125283)

I thought my dupe senses were tingling!

Re:Slashdot editor's demonstrate..... (0, Troll)

Ethanol-fueled (1125189) | more than 5 years ago | (#29125349)

So who's more pathetic -- Timothy for not remembering it, or you for remembering it? Both of you should leave the basement every now and then.

p.s. it's "editors", not "editor's.

Re:Slashdot editor's demonstrate..... (3, Funny)

MilesTails (1413987) | more than 5 years ago | (#29125481)

Well you are on about a par with us.for correcting someone's grammar. P.S You are missing a double quotation mark.

Re:Slashdot editor's demonstrate..... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#29125535)

I'd say the troll is the most pathetic for trolling the dupe comment on a dupe.

Re:Slashdot editor's demonstrate..... (1)

ichthus (72442) | more than 5 years ago | (#29125741)

And then, you became the most pathetic for trolling the troll who trolled the dupe.

And now, I am the most pathetic for trolling the troll who trolled the troll who trolled the dupe.

Re:Slashdot editor's demonstrate..... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#29125459)

Oh yes we ALL read every story that pops up from months ago. If it was last week ok... But from months ago? Im sorry the rest of us do not live on this website...

So what if it was a dupe...

Re:Slashdot editor's demonstrate..... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#29125469)

You see, he would have seen the original article but his computer was in sleep mode at the time.

Re:Slashdot editor's demonstrate..... (3, Funny)

Desler (1608317) | more than 5 years ago | (#29125585)

Posting dupes of 4 month old stories is the Slashdot way!

Re:Slashdot editor's demonstrate..... (1)

DeathMagnetic (1365763) | more than 5 years ago | (#29125669)

I don't know. Usually doesn't take that long...

Re:Slashdot editor's demonstrate..... (3, Funny)

corbettw (214229) | more than 5 years ago | (#29125695)

Now if only they could come up with a NIC card that could do that when the editors are asleep.

Re:Slashdot editor's demonstrate..... (1)

iamhassi (659463) | more than 5 years ago | (#29126019)

"Apparently Timothy doesn't understand how to use Google [google.com], "

If you're going to tell someone they don't know how to use google and then you link it, at least have the link go to the finished search, because with just the link going to google.com it looks like you don't know how to google either.

same goes for any search engine, including /.'s

Microsoft using Linux? (5, Insightful)

markdavis (642305) | more than 5 years ago | (#29125223)

"Researchers at Microsoft"..."have developed"..."running embedded Linux"

Um, was that a misprint or did hell just freeze over? Hasn't MS referred to Linux as a "virus", a "cancer", "un-American", a "patent violator", and "communistic"?

Re:Microsoft using Linux? (4, Funny)

nycguy (892403) | more than 5 years ago | (#29125265)

Will be researchers formerly at Microsoft "running with an embedded chair" after tomorrow I'm sure...

Re:Microsoft using Linux? (2, Funny)

AndrewNeo (979708) | more than 5 years ago | (#29125599)

If only this hadn't been posted in April [slashdot.org] their jobs could have been saved!

Re:Microsoft using Linux? (3, Insightful)

qw0ntum (831414) | more than 5 years ago | (#29125603)

Apparently not.

Who would have thunk it, researchers at Microsoft getting the task done in the best way possible rather than being dogmatic.

Sheesh. Get over the FUD.

Re:Microsoft using Linux? (4, Informative)

SatanicPuppy (611928) | more than 5 years ago | (#29125879)

Both of you need to chill. Embedded linux is practically the standard for networking and routing devices...If they'd used anything else it would have been weird and worth of comment.

Using something else would have been like having something other than an RJ45 port on it.

Re:Microsoft using Linux? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#29126151)

Using something else would have been like having something other than an RJ45 port on it.

I'm sure there's a group, somewhere in the bowels of Redmond, trying to do exactly that. They'd love nothing more than to have a real "Microsoft Network", 100% incompatible with everything else.

Re:Microsoft using Linux? (1)

qw0ntum (831414) | more than 5 years ago | (#29126165)

Which is my point exactly.

Re:Microsoft using Linux? (4, Informative)

bmajik (96670) | more than 5 years ago | (#29125645)

if the work came out of MSR, they have a very high degree of platform & technology autonomy.

MSR is basically academia, without classroom requirements. There are some product unit partnership projects where obviously a focus on shipping/evolutionary MS platforms or technologies make sense for the problem domain, but more abstract problems are often solved entirely with non-MS tools.

Awesome (2, Funny)

Monkeedude1212 (1560403) | more than 5 years ago | (#29125225)

only waking the computer if, for example, an actualy IM is received or a download is completed."

So now if my falling asleep leads to the computer falling asleep, it'll wake up to wake me up when it finished downloading.

It sounds like a dislexic "Yo Dawg..."

Less is More. More is Less (1)

sexconker (1179573) | more than 5 years ago | (#29125229)

"carry out more complicated tasks autonomously"

Great! (1)

parlancex (1322105) | more than 5 years ago | (#29125241)

Now all we need is a network cable that can carry on the tasks of this NIC allowing it to sleep when it isn't busy, waking it when it needs to wake the main computer! Wait...

Re:Great! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#29125307)

*runs off to patent office*

So much for... (1)

ooomphlaa (1097853) | more than 5 years ago | (#29125247)

So much for letting sleeping computers lie.

Re:So much for... (2)

Abreu (173023) | more than 5 years ago | (#29125623)

Download's not dead which can eternal lie.
And with strange torrents even NICs may die.

O RLY? (1)

FlyingSquidStudios (1031284) | more than 5 years ago | (#29125251)

'Round these here parts, we've had a device like that for years. We call it a network router.

"an actualy IM is received" (1)

jaymz2k4 (790806) | more than 5 years ago | (#29125263)

hmm, that makes sense.

Re:"an actualy IM is received" (1)

sharkey (16670) | more than 5 years ago | (#29126617)

Actualy is a perfectly cromulent word.

So... (1, Funny)

MyLongNickName (822545) | more than 5 years ago | (#29125267)

.. does this mean my botnet can continue to spam folks even if they turn off their PCs? If so, this is a great feature!

so a lower cost ver of the killer nic? (1)

Joe The Dragon (967727) | more than 5 years ago | (#29125273)

so a lower cost ver of the killer nic?

Re:so a lower cost ver of the killer nic? (1)

iamhassi (659463) | more than 5 years ago | (#29126271)

does killer nic have a 2gb flash card?

If They'd Only Had This For Token Ring (1)

Nom du Keyboard (633989) | more than 5 years ago | (#29125279)

If they'd only had this for Token Ring maybe one of its shortcomings wouldn't have hurt it so badly.

(Yes, I know they were supposed to close a pass-through relay on power loss -- and how often somehow they didn't.)

CAR ANALOGY TIME!!! (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#29125289)

are you ever in a position where you need your car to slooooowly move forward all night? Well, imagine a device that let's you do that while the motor "sleeps"! Just plug it into your lighter adapter, set the device out in front of the car, and go ahead and turn that engine off - by sunrise your car will be over yonder.

Magic? No... just a fully functional electric car that may well have more torque than your own. Or something. /analogy

Mainframe architecture revisted ... (4, Interesting)

golodh (893453) | more than 5 years ago | (#29125303)

It's funny how today's PCs continue to take architectural queues from earlier mainframe and minicomputer designs.

Remember when your IBM mainframe had an array of special I/O processors? Well, the bus arbitrator on your motherboard looks suspiciously like one of those. And remember when disk arrays because "smart"? Well ... just looks at the electronics on the average SATA IDE drive and you'll see what I mean. It manages the hardware, and you only talk to the drive's on-board controller, never to the drive itself.

And now this network controller. Pardon me, I mean network card.

Re:Mainframe architecture revisted ... (1)

paeanblack (191171) | more than 5 years ago | (#29125405)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recapitulation_theory

It wasn't true in biology, but it is certainly true for computer design.

Re:Mainframe architecture revisted ... (1)

snspdaarf (1314399) | more than 5 years ago | (#29125425)

As long as my computer stays a PC, and not a "baby 36." Just typing those two numbers made my head hurt.

lol! (1)

Jah-Wren Ryel (80510) | more than 5 years ago | (#29125679)

It's funny how today's PCs continue to take architectural queues from earlier mainframe and minicomputer designs.

And fifos, and skip lists too!

Re:Mainframe architecture revisted ... (1)

Dogtanian (588974) | more than 5 years ago | (#29126181)

And remember when disk arrays because "smart"? Well ... just looks at the electronics on the average SATA IDE drive and you'll see what I mean.

Yeah, but to be fair IDE (the original) has been around- and even standard- for a long time now. It's not like this is something just coming back.

Actually, I'm kind of surprised that a standard that was originally associated with the lower end of the hard drive market- and until recently still the mass-market favourite, its philosophy continued by SATA- is one based around each drive having its own "smart" electronics. You'd have thought that from a cost point of view that it would have been less favoured for that reason.

Re:Mainframe architecture revisted ... (1)

mishikal (787729) | more than 5 years ago | (#29126503)

It's funny how today's PCs continue to take architectural queues from earlier mainframe and minicomputer designs.

I don't get it. What do long lines have to do with how a home PC is designed? Or this a reference to the number of people who queue while waiting for windows to complete a task?

This already happens (1)

Anonymusing (1450747) | more than 5 years ago | (#29125389)

Check all your Ethernet connections, at all terminations, especially if you are a bank or R&D place. Has someone snuck a battery-operated Linux gumstick somewhere, transparently mimicking the MAC address at both ends of its traffic, secretly recording and transmitting all your traffic to a nefarious third source? You don't usually notice somebody ADDING something to your network -- of course, in the two seconds of downtime it took to insert it, you probably just thought it was a blip. Maybe you didn't even notice.

Re:This already happens (1)

amorsen (7485) | more than 5 years ago | (#29125613)

Why run on battery when decent switches (used by banks...) have PoE available?

When decent switches are hard to find (2, Insightful)

tepples (727027) | more than 5 years ago | (#29125949)

Why run on battery when decent switches (used by banks...) have PoE available?

Because the switches and switch-router-NAT appliances marketed for use in homes or small businesses often aren't "decent switches", and because PoWLAN isn't yet available.

problem solved! (1)

cashman73 (855518) | more than 5 years ago | (#29125451)

Much to the disdain of husbands around the world, women have known how to talk in their sleep for years! Perhaps they should hire a woman to do this?

// Ducks! ;-)

Somniloquy (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#29125465)

Somniloquy (meaning to talk in one's sleep)

English motherfucker, we speak it.

Re:Somniloquy (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#29125507)

>>Somniloquy (meaning to talk in one's sleep)

>English motherfucker, we speak it.

Oh grow up.

the killer xeno pro and ultra (1)

DragonTHC (208439) | more than 5 years ago | (#29125489)

both these nics are supposed to have this functionality.

Exit The Grid and Become Human (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#29125533)

You need to turn on; tune in; and drop out [wikipedia.org] .

I am not advocating drug use.

Yours In Serotonin,
K. Trout,

Research? This is already a product (2, Interesting)

xianthax (963773) | more than 5 years ago | (#29125589)

NIC's with on board processors and off load for these types of applications have been on the market for several years.

http://www.bigfootnetworks.com/products/ [bigfootnetworks.com]

I think the only difference here is the operation while sleeping which could easily be done with a killer nic with firmware/driver changes

DRAC (1)

pak9rabid (1011935) | more than 5 years ago | (#29125591)

This sounds strangely familiar to a Dell Remote Access Controller [wikipedia.org] , where it's basically a computer inside of your computer that interfaces with its various input and output buses and has its own NIC that's always powered on as long as the PSU(s) in the system have power. As long as the system is plugged in and the DRAC has an active network connection, the system can be accessed remotely no matter what state the physical system is in. I've performed many remote OS installs from 5 states away with these nifty little guys. Now if someone or some company could come up with a standard interface for remote access controllers, then we'd really be in business. As it is now these guys are all proprietary (and hella expensive).

How about security? (2, Insightful)

bughunter (10093) | more than 5 years ago | (#29125689)

My first thought was "IMs? What about malware, etc?" In other words, a firewall on an embedded system in the NIC would be far more useful than something that lets your CPU sleep while you keep downloading porn.

And then my second thought was "Great, another vulnerability for attack. Why hack someone's PC, which could have any configuration, when you can hack the monoculture of embedded processors in consumer NICs?"

Either way, marketing this kind of NIC without addressing all of its security potentials/weaknesses would be hasty... and possibly even irresponsible.

Re:How about security? (1)

MartinSchou (1360093) | more than 5 years ago | (#29126209)

marketing this kind of NIC without addressing all of its security potentials/weaknesses would be hastyPotential? All of them?

Care to list a single operating system where all of its potential security issues and weaknesses were addressed before it was released into the marketplace?

It'd be tempting to list OpenBSD, but even that has had (and probably still has) unknown security issues, both potential and realised ones.

Actually, operating systems are highly complex. Let's go for something more tangible and a lot less complex: List all potential security issues with box cutters. If you go back 10 years to 1999, would you at any point have placed "could allow terrorists to high jack four airliners and bring down two of the biggest office buildings in the world" on that list? I wouldn't - you'd have to be completely mental to think that'd even be remotely possible, even if you settle for the high jacking.

What you're suggesting is putting a complete halt to every single piece of technological development in all fields.

Re:How about security? (0, Troll)

bughunter (10093) | more than 5 years ago | (#29126547)

Yours is a fallacious interpretation of my statement. If I said "Eat your vegetables," an analogously false interpretation would be "Become a Vegan."

Re:How about security? (1)

BikeHelmet (1437881) | more than 5 years ago | (#29126397)

Either way, marketing this kind of NIC without addressing all of its security potentials/weaknesses would be hasty... and possibly even irresponsible.

Seems to be working fine for Bigfoot. :P

I don't think there's a huge number of vulnerabilities for an OS stripped down that much. The much reduced attack surface of the kernel and running applications will harden it to almost all exploits. Not all, but enough that it'll be rare to get hacked that way.

After all, technically you can hack current NICs, but it's not every day that it happens. ;)

Nice idea, but written wrong. (-1)

ClickWir (166927) | more than 5 years ago | (#29125703)

"Network Adapter Keeps Talking While a PC Is Asleep "

Not really. It's just small pc with a network connection, can do plenty of things without the big pc, and has the ability to wake the big pc if it needs to.

In other words... this isn't news.

A bittorrent client? (1)

bcmm (768152) | more than 5 years ago | (#29125705)

Does this wake the system up every time that 2GB has filled up then?

Re:A bittorrent client? (1)

iamhassi (659463) | more than 5 years ago | (#29126291)

"Does this wake the system up every time that 2GB has filled up then?"

yes, that's kinda the point, and you can probably increase the storage.

Re-Post - USB-Based NIC Torrents... 04.27.09 (1)

Browzer (17971) | more than 5 years ago | (#29125715)

http://tech.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=09/04/27/2310234 [slashdot.org]

and my comment to the first story: http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1213805&cid=27741803 [slashdot.org]

I'm guessing the inventor's statistics "In the office environment, 52% of respondents left their machines on for remote access, and 35% did so to support applications running in the background, of which e-mail and IM were most popular (47%)." are still true.

http://mesl.ucsd.edu/yuvraj/research/documents/Somniloquy-NSDI09-Yuvraj-Agarwal.pdf [ucsd.edu]

Is it just me? (4, Interesting)

SuseLover (996311) | more than 5 years ago | (#29125739)

Is this scary technology? Now your system can become a true zombie on a botnet while asleep. Couldn't a virus/worm just wake your system up and infect it?

seen this somewhere before (1)

v1 (525388) | more than 5 years ago | (#29125811)

Sounds a lot like Lights Out Management [apple.com] eh. Seen this in Sun [sun.com] and HP [hp.com] too.

It's been done before.... (1)

macraig (621737) | more than 5 years ago | (#29125861)

Though I can't cite an old /. post or other article, I was reading about a LAN adapter with embedded processor and RAM for download storage at least a year ago. I don't think it was early news of this same.

A little too defensive? (0, Troll)

Anachragnome (1008495) | more than 5 years ago | (#29125931)

Anyone but me get the Willies seeing "Microsoft" and "BitTorrent" used together in such a fashion?

Without having even reached the end of the paragraph I had already gone into "Yeah, right." mode.

Seriously, with as much effort as Microsoft has put into DRM development, how can anything like this be expected to actually function the way WE, the end-user, want it to work?

I find it exceedingly difficult to dismiss a past such as Microsoft possesses, and having some university name attached to the idea does nothing for me. Universities these days will do anything for a buck, much like Microsoft.

And if I didn't already have a raging case of the Willies, throwing the name "Akamai" into the mix didn't help.

Re:A little too defensive? (-1, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#29126061)

I find it exceedingly difficult to dismiss a past such as Microsoft possesses, and having some university name attached to the idea does nothing for me. Universities these days will do anything for a buck, much like Microsoft.

Don't use it.

.

Without having even reached the end of the paragraph I had already gone into "Yeah, right." mode.

Don't bother reading TFA. Don't bother commenting. You said nothing of value anyway.

.

Anyone but me get the Willies seeing "Microsoft" and "BitTorrent" used together in such a fashion?

Lots of other lame GroupThinkers.

.

And if I didn't already have a raging case of the Willies, throwing the name "Akamai" into the mix didn't help.

Do you have a point hidden in here somewhere?

.

Seriously, with as much effort as Microsoft has put into DRM development, how can anything like this be expected to actually function the way WE, the end-user, want it to work?

What DRM are you referring to? What will the DRM do? Will it prevent the comupter from sleeping? Will it prevent the computer from waking up? Will it prevent the network card from working? Will it prevent packets from arriving? What will Microsoft gain from this so-called DRM? You're missing even a shred of a coherent thought here.

Re:A little too defensive? (0, Troll)

Anachragnome (1008495) | more than 5 years ago | (#29126223)

"What DRM are you referring to? What will the DRM do? Will it prevent the comupter from sleeping? Will it prevent the computer from waking up? Will it prevent the network card from working? Will it prevent packets from arriving? What will Microsoft gain from this so-called DRM?"

All very good questions that you do not answer and so remain.

And that WAS the point of my comment. Too many questions simply because of the names involved. I didn't even touch on the fact LINUX is involved somehow. And who the fuck said I didn't read the article? Do you see the name "Akamai" in the summary?

"...must not feed troll. Must not feed troll..."

Intel AMT LAN has been doing that for years (1)

Glasswire (302197) | more than 5 years ago | (#29125953)

Management engine in the chipset has it's own IP stack and runs even when PC is off.

Microsoft better be quick. (1)

VulpesFoxnik (1493687) | more than 5 years ago | (#29125977)

They make the mistake of using Linux.
They should be running Windows CE!

(Yes, this is a joke for those without humor sense. I'm actually somewhat happy to see linux used.)

A Beowoulf cluster (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#29126047)

of Network Adapters!

I bought one already! (0, Offtopic)

fikx (704101) | more than 5 years ago | (#29126123)

I already have a store-bought version of this on my PC! It doesn't use USB though...it uses cat5 as the bus and does much more than their hobby version....the box says "broadband router" but I'm a techy person...I read the specs and figured out what it REALLY was....

on a large scale network chatter (1)

markringen (1501853) | more than 5 years ago | (#29126287)

on a large scale network chatter costs energy, and causes power fluctuations strangely enough. these tiny fluctuations actually cause power-supply's in servers to break quicker, and that's why you should always separate the power of network devices. most switches are of truly crappy quality and thus destroy the stability of your power, allot of servers don't like this strangely enough! the best thing to do is to have them connected to a UPS or another external power-system. why can't anyone make a power-noise free switch?

Romantics : Talking In Your Sleep (1)

sukotto (122876) | more than 5 years ago | (#29126349)

>The adapter, dubbed Somniloquy (meaning to talk in one's sleep) ... keeps the network connection going ...
>also developed a simplified IM client and bittorrent client that carry out more complicated tasks
>autonomously, only waking the computer if, for example, an ... IM is received or a download is completed."
.
"Talking in Your Sleep" -- The Romatics
[...]
I hear the secrets that you keep;
When you're talking in your sleep;
I hear the secrets that your keep;
When you're talking in your sleep;
.
When I hold you in my arms at night;
Don't you know you're sleeping in the spotlight;
And all the things that you keep inside;
You tell me the secrets that you just can't hide;
.
You tell me that you love me;
And you tell me that yuo need me;
You tell me that you love me;
And I know that I'm right;
'Cause I hear it in the night;
.
I hear the secrets that you keep;
When you're talking in your sleep;
I hear the secerets that your keep;
When yuo're talking in your sleep;
[...]

microsoft using linux? (1)

Gearoid_Murphy (976819) | more than 5 years ago | (#29126459)

perhaps today is the day Satan goes to work in a snow plow?, seriously though, is anyone else a little surprised at this?

Microsoft using linux? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#29126471)

"Researchers at Microsoft... running embedded Linux. "

I wonder why they didn't use Windows XP Embedded for this task. 64MB of RAM is plenty enought for Windows XP, right?

Run lightweight system so hog can sleep? (1)

Kaz Kylheku (1484) | more than 5 years ago | (#29126529)

Instead of putting a pig operating system to sleep on the main board, while a daughter card runs Linux, it's a lot simpler to just run Linux on the main board.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?