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!

Researcher Runs IP Network Over Xylophones

timothy posted more than 2 years ago | from the like-y'-do dept.

It's funny.  Laugh. 83

joabj writes "Following up on experiments of running Internet Protocol(IP)-based networks with carrier pigeons or bongos, UofC grad student R. Stuart Geiger has demonstrated that it is possible to transmit simple ping requests across two computers using people playing xylophones. Throughput is roughly 1 baud, when the participants don't make any mistakes, or get bored and wander off. The OSI encapsulated model of networking makes this project doable, allowing humans to be inserted at Layer 1, the physical layer. Vint Cerf wasn't kidding when he used to say, 'IP on Everything.'"

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

this isn't even cool (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39986093)

I remember doing "networking via scraps of paper" at school.

Writing silly notes since kindergarten and then actually implementing some real protocol in computing classes.

Then a couple of years later an LED, a bit of fibre and an LDR and we were building "fibre networks".

Mind you, this was two decades ago.

Looking even at the "cool" projects which come out of MIT undergrads, I get the impression that almost all children are exposed to absolutely nothing interesting whatsoever before the age of 18.

Re:this isn't even cool (2)

Hatta (162192) | more than 2 years ago | (#39986333)

Looking even at the "cool" projects which come out of MIT undergrads, I get the impression that almost all children are exposed to absolutely nothing interesting whatsoever before the age of 18.

Welcome to education in the US.

Re:this isn't even cool (1)

davester666 (731373) | more than 2 years ago | (#39986801)

It's parenting.

"We must keep the child safe from all danger, real or perceived."

It isn't *just* parenting. (1)

Oxford_Comma_Lover (1679530) | more than 2 years ago | (#39987403)

In the public grade schools in Hawaii, the class will share about four textbooks on any given subject, and the state mandates and actually teaches toward state tests with state lesson plans and quizzes that are frequently wrong. They mark the kids as wrong when they get things right, and then tell them "you were right but I have to mark it lower because the state's answer is X."

And I don't mean normal smarter-than-the-test wrong, I mean things like singular v. plural.

Parenting is deficient in a lot of places, even abusive, but it's far from only parenting that is fucking up U.S. education.

Re:this isn't even cool (1)

KhabaLox (1906148) | more than 2 years ago | (#39998051)

I remember doing "networking via scraps of paper" at school.

When I visited the Miraikan Museum in Odaiba, Toyko, back in ~2005 they had a mechanical IP network that routed 2 byte messages of black and white wooden balls over rails and Archimedes screws. The first byte was the "IP" address (I think there were 4 or 5 nodes) and the second byte was the message. You set up your message in the staging area of your workstation, then pulled the release lever. The balls would roll down the track past an eye that would read the colors and various gates would be opened/closed to route the message. I can't remember is the scanning and routing was done by computer or if they had come up with a more elegant, all mechanical solution. (I want to say the latter.)

they forgot to add parity notes (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39986117)

to catch transmission mistakes. Or maybe that would be checksums or CRCs.

Actually they probably did think of that. Some funny looking patent applications coming the USPTO's way...

Re:they forgot to add parity notes (3, Informative)

TheRealMindChild (743925) | more than 2 years ago | (#39986149)

IP doesn't mean TCP/IP. The TCP half is what does the error control. Therefore, a ping wouldn't have error correction... just "appropriately replied/didn't reply appropriately"

Re:they forgot to add parity notes (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39986189)

You could have IP running on error corrected xylophone playing.

Re:they forgot to add parity notes (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39986247)

Yeah, one of the innovations of TCP/IP was to notice that for most networks they were dealing with the error detection and correction by low-lowel protocols was mostly a waste of bandwidth. Not in this case though.

Re:they forgot to add parity notes (3, Interesting)

kheldan (1460303) | more than 2 years ago | (#39986317)

Play major chords. If a note is incorrect then the chord is dissonant and you have an error condition.

Re:they forgot to add parity notes (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39986339)

Here's a mockup of what a noisy channel [youtube.com] would sound like.

Re:they forgot to add parity notes (1)

CSMoran (1577071) | more than 2 years ago | (#39987935)

Play major chords. If a note is incorrect then the chord is dissonant and you have an error condition.

or a sus4 chord :).

Re:they forgot to add parity notes (1)

mhrivnak (752549) | more than 2 years ago | (#39991323)

Except when a wrong note just yields a different major chord, like F major instead of C major.

Re:they forgot to add parity notes (1)

wirelessduck (2581819) | more than 2 years ago | (#39991401)

That would require two notes to be wrong in order to end up with another major chord.

Re:they forgot to add parity notes (2)

sourcerror (1718066) | more than 2 years ago | (#39986239)

Error detection is a Layer 2 responsibility. TCP only does sequence numbers and resends lost packets.

Re:they forgot to add parity notes (1)

doshell (757915) | more than 2 years ago | (#39986701)

Not quite. In IPv4, both the network layer (IP) and transport layer (TCP) detect transmission errors via checksums. In IPv6, the network layer does not actually detect errors at all (I believe this is so in order to speed up routers by not having them calculate checksums). There's only the TCP checksum and whatever link-layer error detection you have protecting you from corrupted packets.

Re:they forgot to add parity notes (1)

kasperd (592156) | more than 2 years ago | (#39999469)

In IPv4, both the network layer (IP) and transport layer (TCP) detect transmission errors via checksums.

That is not correct. The IP header does have a checksum, but it covers only the header itself. Corrupted data would not be detected by the IP checksum. TCP has a checksum that covers the TCP header, all the payload data, and a few important fields of the IP header (such as source and destination IP).

In IPv6, the network layer does not actually detect errors at all (I believe this is so in order to speed up routers by not having them calculate checksums).

That's correct. It also reduced the header size by two bytes. In total six bytes were removed from the part of the IP header before the addresses, but two new bytes were added as well, meaning an overall reduction from 12 to 8 bytes. The address part was quadrupled from 8 to 32 bytes.

There's only the TCP checksum and whatever link-layer error detection you have protecting you from corrupted packets.

Right. There are commonly error checking at the link layer below IP as well as in the transport layer on top of IP. And both of them will cover the IP header. It was considered redundant to have three separate layers compute checksums of the IP header, thus it was removed. It never covered anything but the header itself.

A few other changes were made at the same time to make up for the loss of the IP checksum. For UDP the checksum was made mandatory. It used to be optional, an IPv4 packet can carry UDP with a checksum of 0, and it will be considered valid for any data. Unlike UDP and TCP, the checksum in ICMP didn't cover any of the header bytes in IPv4. In IPv6 this was changed such that the ICMPv6 checksum also covers the IP addresses. If you for some reason don't like the fact that you are now being forced to checksum all data send over UDP, you can develop new applications using UDPlite. With UDPlite the checksum is mandatory, but it does not have to cover all the data. It covers the IP and UDP headers and as many of the data bytes as you like it to.

In the end those checksums are not really great. It turns out 16 bits of checksum is not enough to catch all the random errors that do occur. The probability that all 16 bits do by chance match when corruption happened is a bit too high. So in many cases you will make use of stronger checksums at a higher layer, in many cases even a cryptographic message-authentication-code. You can use MD5 at the TCP layer. At higher layers there are even more options.

Re:they forgot to add parity notes (1)

doshell (757915) | more than 2 years ago | (#40005263)

Right. There are commonly error checking at the link layer below IP as well as in the transport layer on top of IP. And both of them will cover the IP header. It was considered redundant to have three separate layers compute checksums of the IP header, thus it was removed. It never covered anything but the header itself.

Also, there is something important to be said about link-layer error detection: it is not end-to-end. If corruption occurs while the packet is being handled by a router (as opposed to while it is traversing a link), the link-layer won't be able to detect it.

A few other changes were made at the same time to make up for the loss of the IP checksum. For UDP the checksum was made mandatory. It used to be optional, an IPv4 packet can carry UDP with a checksum of 0, and it will be considered valid for any data. Unlike UDP and TCP, the checksum in ICMP didn't cover any of the header bytes in IPv4. In IPv6 this was changed such that the ICMPv6 checksum also covers the IP addresses. If you for some reason don't like the fact that you are now being forced to checksum all data send over UDP, you can develop new applications using UDPlite. With UDPlite the checksum is mandatory, but it does not have to cover all the data. It covers the IP and UDP headers and as many of the data bytes as you like it to.

And one might point out the importance of always checking the IP headers end-to-end: it provides protection against misrouted packets caused by header corruption that passes undetected at the link layer. I suppose that's why the ICMPv6 checksum was changed to also include the IP header, as well as why even UDP-lite always checks the IP header, if anything else; they compensate for the missing header checksum in IPv6.

In the end those checksums are not really great. It turns out 16 bits of checksum is not enough to catch all the random errors that do occur. The probability that all 16 bits do by chance match when corruption happened is a bit too high. So in many cases you will make use of stronger checksums at a higher layer, in many cases even a cryptographic message-authentication-code. You can use MD5 at the TCP layer. At higher layers there are even more options.

Yes, I would agree with that. Checksums were nice back when you didn't have that much computing power to waste on protocol overhead, but better error detection mechanisms are now feasible at a fraction of the cost. I do wonder, though, how many people actually use TCP-MD5 these days?

Thanks a lot for your reply!

Re:they forgot to add parity notes (1)

kasperd (592156) | more than 2 years ago | (#40010027)

Also, there is something important to be said about link-layer error detection: it is not end-to-end. If corruption occurs while the packet is being handled by a router (as opposed to while it is traversing a link), the link-layer won't be able to detect it.

Very true. I have gotten into some verbal fights over that in the past with people insisting their error checking was good enough, and they didn't want to support the same kind of error checking other people were using. I kept pointing out, that the it was not a question about whether their error checking was good enough, but rather that they had to use the same as other people in order to get end-to-end checking.

In the end I backed down a little bit and instead insisted on having overlap, such that you'd compute the new checksum before verifying the old one, such that it was unlikely for a corruption to happen without affecting at least one of the checksum verifications.

I do wonder, though, how many people actually use TCP-MD5 these days?

I have gotten the impression it is used for most BGP sessions, and not much else. But I really wouldn't know since I haven't touched BGP directly. I have never used MD5 in TCP myself. Whenever I have needed better checks than what the default TCP checksum provided, I have always been using checks at a higher protocol layer.

Re:they forgot to add parity notes (2)

skids (119237) | more than 2 years ago | (#39989009)

Really they didn't implement IP-over-xylophone -- you cannot, because there is no provision in the IP standard for framing between packets. They implemented some as-yet-undisclosed link layer protocol, and then ran IP over it. They could just as easily have run DECNET. Since they gave no details of the link layer protocol, we don't know if it had checksum support.

Re:they forgot to add parity notes (1)

msauve (701917) | more than 2 years ago | (#39986669)

PING doesn't mean IP. The most common form of PING doesn't use IP. It uses ICMP.

Re:they forgot to add parity notes (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39987895)

Still uses IP. ICMP packets are delivered in IP packets.

Re:they forgot to add parity notes (1)

hcs_$reboot (1536101) | more than 2 years ago | (#39986873)

Any layer may be implemented. The physical layer being a man and his xylophone, layer 2 could be a check that the notes are the correct ones.
Layer 3, IP, needs a minimum of 160 bits for the header... and the guys need to be good in arithmetic calculation to provide an accurate checksum!
And why not a router at that layer, two men, one listens to the last xylophone and the other one translates to a piano in the next room... while there could be some networks interferences :-)

Re:they forgot to add parity notes (2)

19thNervousBreakdown (768619) | more than 2 years ago | (#39987067)

"Ping"

"Your tits look nice today."

Replied very inappropriately!

UofC? (1)

tapspace (2368622) | more than 2 years ago | (#39986137)

Do we call Cal UofC? I had to check the article to make sure this very serious research project was coming out of California and not the University of Cambodia.

Re:UofC? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39986611)

In California, we call it UC Berkeley [wikipedia.org] .

Re:UofC? (3, Interesting)

catmistake (814204) | more than 2 years ago | (#39986901)

In California, we call it UC Berkeley [wikipedia.org] .

i.e. yoo see burr clee, and even that is incorrect, as the town and the school where named after Bishop Berkeley of "if a tree falls in the forest and no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound?" fame. His name is pronounced BAR clee.

/pedant

Re:UofC? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39987329)

"if a tree falls in the forest and no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound?"

Answer depends on your definition of 'sound'.

If a 'sound' is simply vibrations in a medium that, were an ear nearby, could be detected by said ear, then YES, all our knowledge of the world indicates that vibrations like that would be made, whether or not an observer is there.

If a 'sound' is defined as 'something that is heard', then NO, no one being nearby means no one hears it.

Re:UofC? (1)

catmistake (814204) | more than 2 years ago | (#39987597)

relevant: Observer effect [wikipedia.org]

just FYI Bishop Berkeley's solution was (paraphrasing): "yes, it makes a sound, because God hears everything."

Re:UofC? (1)

Attila Dimedici (1036002) | more than 2 years ago | (#39989969)

as the town and the school where ??? named after Bishop Berkeley

Where what was named after Bishop Berkeley?
If you are going to be pedantic, spell your post correctly.

Re:UofC? (1)

KhabaLox (1906148) | more than 2 years ago | (#39998071)

Most of my neighbors call it Cal or just Berkeley. They only use the UC when talking of one of the "lesser" campuses.

Re:UofC? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39986839)

UofC refers to the University of Chicago in every elite academic circle I know of... most people call this school Berkeley, UC-Berkeley, etc.

what? no video? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39986151)

no?

Anyone else think of CE3K (3, Insightful)

rossdee (243626) | more than 2 years ago | (#39986209)

Speilberg thought of communicating using musical notes 35 years ago

Re:Anyone else think of CE3K (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39986243)

Speilberg made $337,700,000. This guy will die a virgin. Big difference.

Re:Anyone else think of CE3K (2)

JWSmythe (446288) | more than 2 years ago | (#39991567)

    Dude, why did you post anonymous. You would have had a great moderation war.

    Those who see the humor (and fact) in wrote you wrote would mod you up.
    Those see Spielberg as a deity and will do anything to appease him, and mod you down.
    Those who the virgin comment hits just a little too close to home would mod you down.

    My gut instinct is that you would have had at least a couple dozen moderations, and landed at a nice solid "+4 troll" moderation

    I still like the idea I saw a while back about wireless network via lasers. It was basically a laser diode and sensor on each end. they had to be perfectly aligned, and unobstructed. I don't know what kind of throughput they got, but I'd have to guess with the right diodes and drivers, they could probably manage 10Gb/s. Of course, it's a lot easier to just run the fiber, and not suffer from interference when someone put their hand in the data stream. :)

    I'll probably never try it though, because I haven't qualified in the "virgin" category for decades, and reaffirm it regularly.

Re:Anyone else think of CE3K (1)

Necronomicode (859935) | more than 2 years ago | (#39986327)

Speilberg pffft.

Try this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hedy_Lamarr [wikipedia.org] - secure communication using frequency hopping from an actress in 1941 ;-)

Edison patneted this idea (1)

peter303 (12292) | more than 2 years ago | (#39989221)

And so did many other people to multiplex telegraph signals over precious telegraph lines. In fact generalizations of these techniques lead to the phonograph and telephone. Read Randall Stross Edison biography for details. He is a Silicon valley historian.

Upcoming Studies (4, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39986253)

Upcoming studies:
Improving Baud: Coffee vs Electroshocks
IP Backbone Implementation Using Michael J. Fox
River Rapids: High-Speed Internet With Riverdancers
Increasing Latency With Rube Goldberg Networks
Replacing LCD Screens With Bored College Students And Etch-a-Sketches
Stone-age Computing: Exploring Completely Inadequate Alternatives To Modern Technology

Re:Upcoming Studies (1)

garyebickford (222422) | more than 2 years ago | (#39986433)

River Rapids: High-Speed Internet With Riverdancers

This I'd like to see - would it be implemented as a highly parallel channel?

Re:Upcoming Studies (2)

jones_supa (887896) | more than 2 years ago | (#39987401)

You might also want to check AlgoRythmics [youtube.com] , who present various sort algorithms in the form of traditional dance.

only 1 baud? (1)

CastrTroy (595695) | more than 2 years ago | (#39986271)

1 baud seems quite slow. Using the different notes to code diffent byte values would allow you to transmit data quite quickly. If you have 8 diffferent notes, then 2 consecutive notes can do 1.6 million different combinations. That's equivalent to 3 bytes. 2 notes could easily be played in 1 second rso 3 baud would be simple. Bring it up to 32 keys and the baud rate could go up quite highroad. You just have to encode it properly.

Re:only 1 baud? (5, Informative)

msauve (701917) | more than 2 years ago | (#39986361)

The baud rate is insignificant of throughput, it's not clear why it was even mentioned, especially in relation to throughput. Each note encodes 4 bits (a hex digit), so although it does run at 1 baud, the system runs at 4 bps.

Your math is way off. With 8 notes, each encodes 3 bits; two notes allow 64 different combinations (not 1.6 million!), or 6 bits.

Re:only 1 baud? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39986367)

1 baud means one symbol per second, not one bit per second. If there are only two symbols in the alphabet (for example two notes), then 1 baud results in 1bps, but if there are more symbols, the bitrate can be higher.

Re:only 1 baud? (1)

Joce640k (829181) | more than 2 years ago | (#39986385)

8 notes is three bits each, I don't know how you got to 3 bytes from two consecutive notes...

Even two simultaneous notes would only be six bits.

Re:only 1 baud? (1)

CrimsonAvenger (580665) | more than 2 years ago | (#39986457)

If you have 8 diffferent notes, then 2 consecutive notes can do 1.6 million different combinations.

Well, no.

Actually, 2 octal digits can do 64 different combinations.

Re:only 1 baud? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39986683)

If you have 8 diffferent notes, then 2 consecutive notes can do 1.6 million different combinations.

Are you a web programmer?

Here's a better article.... (3, Informative)

Dark$ide (732508) | more than 2 years ago | (#39986275)

I stopped reading the article because they can't spell "ACSII".

So a quick Google turns up this Black-boxing the User: Internet Protocol over Xylophone Players (IPoXP) [altchi.org]

Re:Here's a better article.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39990213)

I stopped reading the article because they can't spell "ACSII".

Of course they can. They did it right here:

In a typical setup, the computer will send a message packet to the microcontroller in the ACSII format, which the microcontroller converts into hexadecimal code.

You probably meant they can't spell "ASCII".

It needs an acronym! (1)

kheldan (1460303) | more than 2 years ago | (#39986289)

I suggest we refer to this new protocol as "XoIP" (pronounced "zoip", of course).

Re:It needs an acronym! (1)

bunratty (545641) | more than 2 years ago | (#39986759)

Wouldn't it be IPoX?

Re:It needs an acronym! (4, Funny)

arcsimm (1084173) | more than 2 years ago | (#39986859)

That's a no-go -- the trademark is already registered to Apple's biological weapons division.

Next phase, IPoXP tunneling (1)

AchilleTalon (540925) | more than 2 years ago | (#39986295)

Let's move the experiment in the subway.

Protocols (0)

girlintraining (1395911) | more than 2 years ago | (#39986305)

A human can do anything a computer can do. This isn't exactly news. The difference is in how long it takes.

What's old is new again (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39986355)

Great, I just got IPX off my network...

That's a Glockenspiel, not a Xylophone. (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39986359)

The article states that the musical instrument has "aluminum keys". From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glockenspiel :

"[A glockenspiel] is similar to the xylophone; however, the xylophone's bars are made of wood, while the glockenspiel's are metal plates or tubes, thus making it a metallophone."

Re:That's a Glockenspiel, not a Xylophone. (4, Informative)

rubycodez (864176) | more than 2 years ago | (#39988661)

And for those who slept in biology, xylem tissue transports water and dissolved nutrients, in a tree it is the wood. The word comes from the Greek xylon, which means wood. So a xylophone must be wooden.

Re:That's a Glockenspiel, not a Xylophone. (1)

DesertJazz (656328) | more than 2 years ago | (#39993483)

Originally xylophones were all wooden, and the expensive ones still are, but many are made of synthetic material now.

As a band director that teaches percussion it drives me nuts when people call a Glockenspiel (or bell set) a xylophone. I think it's caused by some of the toys that are available for little kids that are mislabeled.

Almost interesting (1)

wonkey_monkey (2592601) | more than 2 years ago | (#39986373)

Stuart Geiger has demonstrated that it is possible to transmit simple ping requests across two computers using people playing xylophones.

Was there ever any doubt that this could be done? It's the same as that carrier pigeon IP thing - it was always going to work. Has it taught us anything new?

Re:Almost interesting (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39990251)

Stuart Geiger has demonstrated that it is possible to transmit simple ping requests across two computers using people playing xylophones.

Was there ever any doubt that this could be done? It's the same as that carrier pigeon IP thing - it was always going to work. Has it taught us anything new?

Yes, we now know that Stuart Geiger has way too much spare time and will probably die a virgin.

One baud? What does that mean? (2)

swillden (191260) | more than 2 years ago | (#39986381)

Baud is a measure of symbols per second, so it's meaningless unless the amount of information per symbol is defined.

In this case, it turns out that a symbol is a hexadecimal value, so the data rate is about 4 bits per second.

Increased speed with solenoids & FFT (1)

Announcer (816755) | more than 2 years ago | (#39986443)

With today's DSP technology, FFT algorithms, and a bank of solenoids, two computers could, in theory, transmit data via xylophones a LOT faster than one baud!

FFT analysis on the receiving ends determines which notes are being played and when, even simultaneously. By using notes unique to each machine, both can be playing and receiving simultaneously. It would be quite noisy, but would definitely work.

It would also be a good idea to "damp" the chimes, to dramatically reduce the audio decay rate. This would allow notes to be played in rapid succession, without losing the distinction between individual strikes of a given chime. Yes, the data throughput could become surprisingly fast without the PEBKAC! (Or in this case, PEBXAC)

Sounds like a cool project for someone with a bit of time on their hands, and a good pair of ear protectors.

Re:Increased speed with solenoids & FFT (1)

HBI (604924) | more than 2 years ago | (#39986527)

Wouldn't it be easier just to get 2 sets of acoustic couplers and tape them together out->in in-out? Why reinvent the wheel?

Re:Increased speed with solenoids & FFT (2)

gman003 (1693318) | more than 2 years ago | (#39986865)

Because it's fun?

Re:Increased speed with solenoids & FFT (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39991085)

So your melodramatic "I'm running away forever!" [slashdot.org] episode lasted all of two days.

Re:Increased speed with solenoids & FFT (1)

HBI (604924) | more than 2 years ago | (#40069083)

I hadn't gotten to all my hosts files. You leftist losers should be happy you had me here for one more day, though.

Re:Increased speed with solenoids & FFT (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40083031)

I'm not a "leftist", and nothing I said suggested that I am. That is a lie you are telling to comfort yourself, and to try to deny the fact that you're being rightfully mocked for acting like a teenager sheepishly returning home after yet another aborted attempt at running away. It didn't work. The humiliation you have brought upon yourself has nothing to do with politics, and you know it.

You read my comment as soon as it was posted. You waited several days to reply because it took you that long to come up with that feeble retort, and also because you hoped it would make you look like you didn't care. That didn't work either. You're obsessed with Slashdot and you long for its approval, and everyone can tell.

You ARE reading this comment, because you haven't left Slashdot and you're not going to. The irrefutable proof of this lies in your boast about editing your hosts files. If you really meant to leave, you wouldn't need to do that. You'll only be gone as long as you can resist the urge to go back and remove the entry, which won't be long. If you even added it in the first place.

The closest you could ever possibly come to leaving is registering a new nickname, in a futile attempt to avoid the shame at having been called out on your bullshit. And that will not work either. Every post you make here for the rest of your pathetic life will be an unconditional confession that you agree with everything that I've just said.

You are terrified of the way you were just laid utterly bare by a complete stranger on the Internet. The nervous chuckle that you just awkwardly forced out of your throat did not succeed in convincing you otherwise.

You will now begin furiously shrieking attempts at denial of the incontrovertible truth. You will ineptly attempt to disguise your tantrum as detached amusement, and you will fail completely.

Lame. Slashdot had IP over bongo drums in 2003! (1)

hvdh (1447205) | more than 2 years ago | (#39986469)

Nearly 9 years ago, ./ reported about IP over bongo drums already, featuring double the data rate.
http://slashdot.org/story/03/09/27/175242/tcpip-over-bongo-drums [slashdot.org]

As the original page is offlne since years, here's archive.org:
http://web.archive.org/web/20031230015730/http://eagle.auc.ca/~dreid/ [archive.org]

VOIPOXP (1)

RNLockwood (224353) | more than 2 years ago | (#39986513)

What's next, VOIPOXP (Voice Over IP over xyloPhone? Latency will make satellite and lunar communication look really good. :-)

OSI never made anything doable (1)

my_2_cent (955472) | more than 2 years ago | (#39986555)

"The OSI encapsulated model of networking makes this project doable". The OSI model never made anything doable. Encapsulation was invented long before OSI came along and the seven layers never had any impact on the basic Internet protocols. The idea of "frameworks" is about as close as anyone got to anything like the OSI seven-layer cake which has always been an abomination and was never responsible for the development of anything.

Somethings smells funny at Vint Cerf's place (5, Funny)

Chainsaw (2302) | more than 2 years ago | (#39986593)

"'IP on Everything." Sounds like his office is a really disgusting place.

Re:Somethings smells funny at Vint Cerf's place (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39987019)

IP on everything too...

Re:Somethings smells funny at Vint Cerf's place (1)

catmistake (814204) | more than 2 years ago | (#39987051)

"'IP on Everything." Sounds like his office is a really disgusting place.

LULZZZZ! [www.last.fm]
sorry, no online video or audio available... but trust me, its ridiculous

Re:Somethings smells funny at Vint Cerf's place (1)

Anne_Nonymous (313852) | more than 2 years ago | (#39989759)

Sounds like my brother-in-law's hound dog.

Does anyone else have visions of... (1)

GPSguy (62002) | more than 2 years ago | (#39987393)

RFC1149/2549 coupled to a keyboard under a line of birds?

plus 4, T8oll) (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39987727)

it racist f0r a

Video demonstration of IP over Xylophone Players (2)

Cito (1725214) | more than 2 years ago | (#39987999)

Here is the video demonstration that didn't get posted in the original article:

Video: http://youtu.be/qCT7SisWh38 [youtu.be]

Internet Protocol over Xylophone Players (IPoXP) situates humans at the lowest layers of the Internet. Read the full paper at http://www.stuartgeiger.com/ipoxp.pdf [stuartgeiger.com] . A project by R. Stuart Geiger, Yoon Jeong, and Emily Manders at the University of California, Berkeley. Presented at alt.CHI 2012.

Video demonstration of Xylophone Players (1)

mbstone (457308) | more than 2 years ago | (#39990731)

You'll like this little gem [britishpathe.com] better.

Re:Video demonstration of Xylophone Players (1)

Cito (1725214) | more than 2 years ago | (#39990925)

that's just spam, has nothing to do with the original article IP over Xylophone.

Ping has been done using ducks! It's true (1)

i_want_you_to_throw_ (559379) | more than 2 years ago | (#39989229)

Just read the first review [amazon.com]

Computer Science (1)

moniker127 (1290002) | more than 2 years ago | (#39989263)

A lot of people who've been working with electronic computers all their life intuitively assume that electrical computers are the only way to go, but there are other (albeit mostly currently impracticable) ways to automate binary math. -You can make a computer that uses water pressure instead of voltage- all the logic gates used in electronics can be built with copper pipe. -You could theoretically build a fully optical computer, with fibers, mirrors, beam splitters, etc (this I've been mulling over in my head) -Hell, I've heard of people using turtles for computing. Not quite sure how THAT would work, but party on, Wayne. Anyway we only use electrical computers because they're super easy to work with. That may change in the future.

IP over black holes (2)

aviancarrier (570516) | more than 2 years ago | (#39993175)

As a followon to my rfc1149 and rfc2549, I considered doing IP over black holes: if you carefully control matter being dropped into a black hole, you can modulate the huge X-ray emissions as the matter is ripped apart. This would be detectable over huge distances.

at last (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39999243)

that high tech solution to unemployment we've all been waiting for

Check for New Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?