Slashdot Mirror

It goes back decades to 1997. Back then, all the big workstations companies were making their own 64-bit processors; Intel, DEC (the DEC Alpha chip), Sun (SPARC) and MIPS.

DEC and Intel got into a lawsuit, and settled for $700 million. DEC was eventually split in into bits, neither of which kept the original designers.
https://www.wired.com/1997/10/...
https://www.extremetech.com/co...
https://www.pcworld.idg.com.au...

DEC and ARM also cross-licensed each others patents, signed before the Intel lawsuit.
Plus many of the designs are based on the original paper by Tomasulo:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

Much of the attention over the last month may have been around Apple's new iPhones. But Samsung recently launched a beast of a flagship smartphone that goes head to head with the best from Apple. After a couple of weeks trying it out, here's how we found the Galaxy Note 8.

As 2017 draws to a close, it's a good time to take stock of the current state of the smartphone market by examining the vital statistics of leading vendors' flagship handsets. Apple's iPhone 8, 8 Plus and X, Samsung's Galaxy S8/S8+ and Galaxy Note 8. . .

Samsung Electronics said Thursday it was planning to launch in the second half of this year a new flagship phone, leading to speculation that the company is planning an alternative to the ill-fated Galaxy Note7 that had to be recalled last year.

The launch of a new flagship smartphone this year and continuing sales of the Galaxy S8 and S8+ will help Samsung counter Apple’s launch of a new version of its iPhone. Apple usually unveils new phones in September.

Samsung does announce a S series phone in the first half of the year and a Note series in the second half," said Kiranjeet Kaur, research manager for client devices at IDC Asia/Pacific.

Samsung makes 2 flagship phones a year whereas Apple only release one. It's been this way for years. Unfortunately for Samsung last year's Note 7 was problematic.

....
Not only do jammers prevent consumers from making emergency calls, but they can disrupt critical communications by safety agencies, the FCC said. Hillsborough County sheriff's deputies confirmed that firsthand when they pulled Humphreys over. They said their two-way portable radios lost contact with the dispatcher as they got close to the SUV.

... ...

The FCC imposed the maximum fine for one violation of each, which adds up to $48,000. Because Humphreys used the jammer for so long, the fine could have been as high as $337,000, the FCC said.

From another article,
"Humphreys told the FCC he used the jammer to keep people from talking on their cellphones while driving. Talking on a cellphone while driving is legal in Florida, even without a hands-free kit, though texting while driving is banned. Using a cellphone jammer is illegal for everyone but federal law enforcement, regardless of intent, according to the FCC."

http://www.pcworld.idg.com.au/...

A moving jammer, that doesn't center on the phone caller seems more disruptive rather than less. If your call drops while in motion you're going to retry. This is more helpful to prevent calls in the first place - but even that means they go for their phone. It seems to me the talking isn't the distraction AS much as the dialing.
Joseph Elwell.

There is an entire collection of root certs in your browser that are all trusted unconditionally. Hundreds of them, in fact. These root certs have signed thousands (who knows how many, really?) intermediate certs. All of these intermediate certs are trusted unconditionally to authenticate any SSL server whatsoever. It's pointless to have a key longer than the shortest intermediate cert key length in use anywhere. When you use SSL, you are trusting thousands of unknown parties with absolute cert-signing authority. SSL certificates are known to have been used for explicit man-in-the-middle purposes: Trustwave sold root certificate for surveillance. Sure they revoked that one key because of the bad publicity, but it's common industry practice. How is SSL hopelessly broken? Let us count the ways.

I don't know, they sure look similar to me.

I can only speak about Gnome 2, since i haven't had a chance to play with any Gnome 3 desktops (been playing with Vector KDE Classic, its nice) but the problem with the whole menubar on top bit is cargo cult usability where you copy the look without understanding WHY it looks like it does. in the case of OSX it is a application oriented desktop, the bar on top is supposed to be universal and changes depending on the app. With Linux you have a window oriented desktop where you have each window with its on controls AND the bar on top. It just makes no sense from a usability standpoint.

Personally I'm hoping we'll see some real innovation, I mean here we are, with systems so insanely powerful they would have been considered supercomputers a decade ago, and what do we get? It either rips off OSX, Windows, or cell phones...ugh. While I can understand where the classic desktop metaphor came from its 2012 folks, surely we can come up with something even better from a usability standpoint. Sadly though as long as iPhone and iPad are racking up the sales I think the only "innovation" is gonna be cell phone ripoff designs, which of course make no damned sense on a 27 inch monitor and is generally worse from a usability standpoint than the standard desktop metaphor.

ODF has been supported since Office 2007 SP2. And Office 2013 specifically will support ODF 1.2, which means that spreadsheets with formulas will actually be portable between MS Office and LibreOffice.

Office document support on SkyDrive works with ODF, too.

Is it possible to power an 18.5" monitor (and a thin client) with POE, even if it's LED backlit?

That's what the article is about.. HP has just developed this.

The article linked above does not specifically say whether the monitor is powered over ethernet, or just the computer. So the question cve posed is valid. The article mentioning that the monitor is included in the 13 Watts is here: http://www.pcworld.idg.com.au/article/424196/new_hp_thin_client_cuts_power_cord and this is probably the article the post should link too. As the specifics about the monitor being POE is probably the most important development here.

You would say that it is true that a Tab looks very much like an iPad but that it is not true that an AppleTV looks very much like a WD Elements?

Nope.

So just to be clear you say this device and this device do not look alike but this device and this device look alike. Correct?

"The new version will support Windows 7 and the Windows 8 developer preview, as well as Windows Embedded 7 devices.""

That's impossible! The Kinect doesn't support Linux!

http://www.pcworld.idg.com.au/article/369596/top_ten_kinect_hacks_best_kinect_hacks_far/

Being serious doesn't make it true. Even the iPhone 3G was given the feature quite some time ago.

Wrong. You can pick between the 6, as I noted before, and iOS5 will allow it, but you currently cannot add new ones without jailbreaking.

And again, why wasn't it there from the start. You're saying you couldn't even change between those 6 at one point? That's absurd.

See here, 3x in 1 day from your illiterate brain http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2231292&cid=36430548

LMAO!

Please: Get out of grade school first before posting here, ok?

Also, if apk is a malware writer, then how come he puts out the most viewed guide there is for securing a Windows NT-based OS utilizing computer:

http://www.bing.com/search?q=%22HOW+TO+SECURE+Windows+2000%2FXP%22&go=&form=QBRE

Hmmm?

Where that guide's been put up since 2008 (and his first one goes back as far as 1997 which Neowin, a hugely travelled site rated highly as well?) it's been made:

---

1.) An Essential Guide
2.) Most viewed in its category (usually security)
3.) 5/5 star rated
4.) Nearly 3/4 of a million views across 20 forums it's on
5.) Got him paid in January 2008 at the topmost result from the query on GOOGLE above.

---

Have you done the same, you illiterate troll? No. You're just a "ne'er-do-well" troll!

Fact is, APK's no more a malware maker than is Dr. Mark Russinovich of Microsoft is!

A recent malware attack used Dr. Russinovich's wares too, here http://www.pcworld.idg.com.au/article/251492/trojan_lurks_waiting_steal_admin_passwords/?fp=2&fpid=1 but APK's work has never been used that way, ever.

It really can't be. He didn't put in argc/argv parameterizable abilities in it for scripting the way Dr. Russinovich has, unforunately.

So much for your trolling and libelous b.s. falconhell. You lose as usual, due to your own ignorance and stupidity.

See this, & call me that (you done nothing with yourself NOBODY), because I am FAR from a malware author:

PSEXEC detected as Malware HKTL_PSEXEC.A:

http://forum.sysinternals.com/psexec-detected-as-malware-hktl-psexeca_topic661.html

OR

http://www.pcworld.idg.com.au/article/251492/trojan_lurks_waiting_steal_admin_passwords/?fp=2&fpid=1

Fact is, I'd have to be the STUPIDEST there is, considering I've written the most viewed & well rated guide for securing Windows there is, bar none, here:

http://www.bing.com/search?q=%22HOW+TO+SECURE+Windows+2000%2FXP%22&go=&form=QBRE

"Poor old APK, well known malware author" - by Falconhell (1289630) on Monday May 30, @10:45PM (#36292632)

How am I a "malware author" shit head? I'm no more a malware maker than is Dr. Mark Russinovich of Microsoft (& a recent malware attack used his wares too, here http://www.pcworld.idg.com.au/article/251492/trojan_lurks_waiting_steal_admin_passwords/?fp=2&fpid=1 )

I wrote an app that a company called Computer Associates (who sold off that division no less recently because their wares sucked) said 1 app of 40 or so I put out over time is a "malware" (one with zero threat levels and has YET to be used in a malware attack & good luck with that - it's NOT scriptable (which is WHY Mr. Russinovich's wares get abused that way, & I saw that ahead of time & why I didn't put in argc/argv possibles into my code for use as a malware))).

Now, COMPUTER ASSOCIATES? LOL, true criminals - busted for ACCOUNTING FRAUD:

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/03/business/worldbusiness/03iht-web.1103computer.3381368.html

You, however & in particular? You're a NOTHING, that's never done a damned thing with yourself... you limited little loser!

---

"just cant stand his own irrelevance" - by Falconhell (1289630) on Monday May 30, @10:45PM (#36292632)

LOL, listen: The day you can show you've done more than this PARTIAL LIST of my favs. only of SOME of my accomplishments in the art & science of computing, and before I did? Is the day you can talk, bigshot:

----

Windows NT Magazine (now Windows IT Pro) April 1997 "BACK OFFICE PERFORMANCE" issue, page 61

(&, for work done for EEC Systems/SuperSpeed.com on PAID CONTRACT (writing portions of their SuperCache program increasing its performance by up to 40% via my work) albeit, for their SuperDisk & HOW TO APPLY IT, took them to a finalist position @ MS Tech Ed, two years in a row 2000-2002, in its HARDEST CATEGORY: SQLServer Performance Enhancement).

WINDOWS MAGAZINE, 1997, "Top Freeware & Shareware of the Year" issue page 210, #1/first entry in fact (my work is there)

PC-WELT FEB 1998 - page 84, again, my work is featured there

WINDOWS MAGAZINE, WINTER 1998 - page 92, insert section, MUST HAVE WARES, my work is again, there

PC-WELT FEB 1999 - page 83, again, my work is featured there

CHIP Magazine 7/99 - page 100, my work is there

GERMAN PC BOOK, Data Becker publisher "PC Aufrusten und Repairen" 2000, where my work is contained in it

HOT SHAREWARE Numero 46 issue, pg. 54 (PC ware mag from Spain), 2001 my work is there, first one featured, yet again!

Also, a British PC Mag in 2002 for many utilities I wrote, saw it @ BORDERS BOOKS but didn'

See this, & call me that (you done nothing with yourself NOBODY), because I am FAR from a malware author:

PSEXEC detected as Malware HKTL_PSEXEC.A:

http://forum.sysinternals.com/psexec-detected-as-malware-hktl-psexeca_topic661.html

OR

http://www.pcworld.idg.com.au/article/251492/trojan_lurks_waiting_steal_admin_passwords/?fp=2&fpid=1

Fact is, I'd have to be the STUPIDEST there is, considering I've written the most viewed & well rated guide for securing Windows there is, bar none, here:

http://www.bing.com/search?q=%22HOW+TO+SECURE+Windows+2000%2FXP%22&go=&form=QBRE

"Poor old APK, well known malware author" - by Falconhell (1289630) on Monday May 30, @10:45PM (#36292632)

How am I a "malware author" shit head? I'm no more a malware maker than is Dr. Mark Russinovich of Microsoft (& a recent malware attack used his wares too, here http://www.pcworld.idg.com.au/article/251492/trojan_lurks_waiting_steal_admin_passwords/?fp=2&fpid=1 )

I wrote an app that a company called Computer Associates (who sold off that division no less recently because their wares sucked) said 1 app of 40 or so I put out over time is a "malware" (one with zero threat levels and has YET to be used in a malware attack & good luck with that - it's NOT scriptable (which is WHY Mr. Russinovich's wares get abused that way, & I saw that ahead of time & why I didn't put in argc/argv possibles into my code for use as a malware))).

Now, COMPUTER ASSOCIATES? LOL, true criminals - busted for ACCOUNTING FRAUD:

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/03/business/worldbusiness/03iht-web.1103computer.3381368.html

You, however & in particular? You're a NOTHING, that's never done a damned thing with yourself... you limited little loser!

---

"just cant stand his own irrelevance" - by Falconhell (1289630) on Monday May 30, @10:45PM (#36292632)

LOL, listen: The day you can show you've done more than this PARTIAL LIST of my favs. only of SOME of my accomplishments in the art & science of computing, and before I did? Is the day you can talk, bigshot:

----

Windows NT Magazine (now Windows IT Pro) April 1997 "BACK OFFICE PERFORMANCE" issue, page 61

(&, for work done for EEC Systems/SuperSpeed.com on PAID CONTRACT (writing portions of their SuperCache program increasing its performance by up to 40% via my work) albeit, for their SuperDisk & HOW TO APPLY IT, took them to a finalist position @ MS Tech Ed, two years in a row 2000-2002, in its HARDEST CATEGORY: SQLServer Performance Enhancement).

WINDOWS MAGAZINE, 1997, "Top Freeware & Shareware of the Year" issue page 210, #1/first entry in fact (my work is there)

PC-WELT FEB 1998 - page 84, again, my work is featured there

WINDOWS MAGAZINE, WINTER 1998 - page 92, insert section, MUST HAVE WARES, my work is again, there

PC-WELT FEB 1999 - page 83, again, my work is featured there

CHIP Magazine 7/99 - page 100, my work is there

GERMAN PC BOOK, Data Becker publisher "PC Aufrusten und Repairen" 2000, where my work is contained in it

HOT SHAREWARE Numero 46 issue, pg. 54 (PC ware mag from Spain), 2001 my work is there, first one featured, yet again!

Also, a British PC Mag in 2002 for many utilities I wrote, saw it @ BORDERS BOOKS but didn'

"wouldn't it be great to have the first Google result for your name show what a psychotic jackass you are? "All bark, no bite" - by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 14, @12:23PM (#35818980)

It is, because I showed the PLANET how that's being done unjustly to guys like myself & by a fool named THOR SCHMUCK!

I wrote an app for a fellow forums user, in good faith, because he couldn't get older Apache servers on Windows to run as a service (invisbly on a Windows rig in those days)... so, being the "good neighbor"? I did it for he, as its only 2 lines of code in C/C++ "spawn calls" type work!

That happens, & a LOT (in freeware/shareware) like Nirsoft's Nir Sofer (guy makes excellent powertools smallish utilities) & even Dr. Mark Russinovich (even vs. the COREFLOOD worm, his work is being used BY SAID WORM):

---

PERTINENT QUOTE/EXCERPT:

http://www.pcworld.idg.com.au/article/251492/trojan_lurks_waiting_steal_admin_passwords/?fp=2&fpid=1

"But the Coreflood hackers have been successful, thanks in part to a Microsoft program called PsExec, which was written to help system administrators run legitimate software on computers across their networks.

For a widespread infection, attackers must first compromise a system on the network by tricking the user into downloading their program. Then, when a system administrator logs onto that desktop machine -- to perform routine maintenance, for example -- the malicious software tries to run PsExec and install malware on all other systems on the network.

Often the technique succeeds."

---

I feel bad for Dr. Russinovich here, I really do - THAT? That's NOT a first for he... he designed his app TO HELP SYSADMINS, not harm others... I know the feeling!

HOWEVER - That won't work with the single app I wrote that gets misused... it's NOT SCRIPTABLE is why! & I DESIGNED IT THAT WAY, ON PURPOSE! Just in case someone got "bright ideas", so I omitted argv/argc capabilities from it (never put them in, you have to use it manually & select folders + apps to use it, VISUALLY/INTERACTIVELY!)

Plus, my app has been lowered to ZERO THREAT LEVELS by the folks that are the source of such libel on myself!

(Because the app, like many others, is like a gun, & guns don't kill folks - OTHER PEOPLE DO!)

That occurred (zero threat level), because I went @ CA, on the advice of an attorney (John Lowe of Hiscock & Barclay) & took their 21 point test for removal - My app did not violate a SINGLE 1 OF THEIR 21 POINT TEST is why!

Funniest part here though, is that "ping" is the same (can be used for pinging, or pings of death (in the past, most new OS have patched that much).

Also, CA (the source of all of that)? They're disreputable (busted for accounting fraud) - OR, does THIS link I showed here before, which was + 5 INFORMATIVE rated no less here:

---

COMPUTER ASSOCIATES BUSTED FOR ACCOUNTING FRAUD:

http://news.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1884922&cid=34350102

---

NOT prove that much? Sure does!

Thanks - Because you're only allowing me to expose my false accusers publicly once again for the slime they are... thank you!

---

"... and a few fries short of a happy meal, too. It's just too bad that the .apk file extension has polluted the results for his initials."" - by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 14, @12:23PM (#35818980)

When you produce:

---

1.) PHD in Psychiatry to your name/credit

2.) Proof of your license to practice it professionally

3.) Years-to-Decades of doing so per #3 above

4.) A formal examination of myself in professional environs as to my "menta

In Oz we're getting a national fibre network with 1Gbps :-) (though there is political argy-bargy about it)

I've had shitty combo units but I'e also had shitty dedicated units too. I think that it's an issue of quality and being prepared to pay a bit of a price.

For me a combo unit gives you less points of failure, takes up less space and is easier to administer.

At the moment I have one of these and have been very happy with it.

"Microsoft will only support development of applications running in the Silverlight runtime environment, or of games in the XNA Game Studio runtime environment, it announced last week at its Mix conference. It will not allow third party app developers direct access to the phone's hardware, where they might be better able to exploit its potential"

Just Google for it ;-)

"Internet key"

I found this one really quickly:

http://www.pcworld.idg.com.au/review/broadband/3-mobile/broadband_internet_key/222237

It's probably something to do with the fact that they're running their own App Store.

See http://www.pcworld.idg.com.au/article/326534/optus_launches_mobile_application_store/

cheers,
A. Tapir.

LOAD, LKLM, LOAAAAAAAAaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaadeh! *breathes*
Gotta love the simplicity of Cox's message.
Unrelated Linkage

If you're going to play the "objectivity" card, you might want to avoid using people paid to criticize OOXML as authoratitve sources.

Hell, the fact of the matter is, even the guy who edits the ODF specification has said a lot of good things about OOXML.

http://www.pcworld.idg.com.au/article/209998/odf_editor_odf_loses_ooxml_does

The fact of the matter is, you're letting yourself be swayed by those that have a vested interest in the failure of OOXML, and by people who simply hate anything Microsoft does and look for any excuse to criticize it.

Try making up your own mind.

"why would anyone prefer 2000 over xp? what can 2000 do and xp can't?" - by perryizgr8 (1370173) on Friday March 27, @09:18AM (#27356131)

Well, how about perform BETTER on, rather than "can't do"?

Windows 2000 Run SSD's faster than any other OS by Microsoft... as the "1 thing you asked for"...

http://www.pcworld.idg.com.au/article/270657/which_operating_system_best_ssds

----

PERTINENT EXCERPT/QUOTE:

"Of the recent operating systems that have been tested, would you believe the winner so far is ... Windows 2000?

That aging operating system, said Saeed Arash Far, engineering manager at SSD manufacturer Patriot Memory, is markedly faster than Windows XP, Vista, Mac OS X or Linux when using NAND flash memory. Far said his company's tests showed that Windows 2000 is 5 percent to 8 percent faster over its newer rivals because "Windows 2000 doesn't run any applications in the background.

"We're getting ridiculous numbers with Windows 2000," he said. "When it comes to Vista, it is faster than XP, but with XP, you have the luxury of turning off background applications. ... With Vista, you can't."

okay if i understand this correct, 2000 is faster with nand flash because it "does not run background applications". and then it is stated that in xp "you have the luxury of turning off background applications." so, you can achieve the same performance with xp as you got with 2000. so i'll ask again:
what exactly can 2000 do that xp can't?
by the way, this not running background apps seems to be a truckload of crap to me. i want winamp and search indexer to run in the background. if 2000 can't do that, its just one more thing that it can't do, which every other os does: multitasking. and i don't want to be caught dead with an os that can't multitask.

"why would anyone prefer 2000 over xp? what can 2000 do and xp can't?" - by perryizgr8 (1370173) on Friday March 27, @09:18AM (#27356131)

Well, how about perform BETTER on, rather than "can't do"?

Windows 2000 Run SSD's faster than any other OS by Microsoft... as the "1 thing you asked for"...

http://www.pcworld.idg.com.au/article/270657/which_operating_system_best_ssds

----

PERTINENT EXCERPT/QUOTE:

"Of the recent operating systems that have been tested, would you believe the winner so far is ... Windows 2000?

That aging operating system, said Saeed Arash Far, engineering manager at SSD manufacturer Patriot Memory, is markedly faster than Windows XP, Vista, Mac OS X or Linux when using NAND flash memory. Far said his company's tests showed that Windows 2000 is 5 percent to 8 percent faster over its newer rivals because "Windows 2000 doesn't run any applications in the background.

"We're getting ridiculous numbers with Windows 2000," he said. "When it comes to Vista, it is faster than XP, but with XP, you have the luxury of turning off background applications. ... With Vista, you can't."

----

Since you asked for 1 thing, & that 1 thing happens to be what the future of high performance storage is leaning towards nowadays!

Especially since HDD's are the slowest part of your typical PC nowadays, since HDD's are mechanical in nature!

SSD's are not & electrical in nature instead (& thus, 1000's of times faster - want speed? You have to speed up the SLOWEST PART of any PC, & that's diskbound accesses, & this is what SSD's give you here (not a big fan of "FLASH RAM" based SSD's here though, I am more partial to units like the CENATEK "RocketDrive" &/or Gigabyte IRAM, which use PC-100 SDRAM & DDR-RAM, respectively))...

HOWEVER, based on the above speculation, from the article excerpt above? You could probably "tune/tweak" for that same effect, as in services you don't need running for your particular individual needs & cutting them off/trimming them, in XP or Server 2003 (or VISTA, Server 2008, & doubtless Windows 7 as well) to get the same results, but they probably won't be as good in this capacity, as they are setup "default/oem outta-the-box/stock).

APK

P.S.=> As far as your comments on this issue also (as regards HOSTS files in VISTA/Server2008/Windows 7 no longer being able to use 0 as a blocking IP address, & also the removal of the PORT FILTERING gui front-end control) -> http://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1177883&cid=27356099 ?

Your comment there was as useful as yours was here in this reply (well, your comment HERE actually WAS useful to myself, in that I immediately showed you a technically accurate & analyzed set of data in response to your question here, whereas you offered nothing even remotely the same to my question in the URL here in my P.S. above)

Your 'contribution' there was not even technically pertinent (so why don't YOU learn something about this art & science, first, then reply instead of 'trolling', yourself?)... so please - give up on the "english grammar wannabe" replies, & instead contribute something technically pertinent instead... apk

http://www.pcworld.idg.com.au/article/274414/amd_sees_no_geode_chip_replacement_sight

"There are no plans for a follow-on product to today's available AMD Geode LX products, but we expect to make this very successful processor available to customers as long as the market demands," said Phil Hughes, an AMD spokesman.

The chip is too old for further development, said Dean McCarron, president for Mercury Research. Chip designs and manufacturing processes have improved since it was first introduced.

Sums it up nicely. They'll still make them as long as there is a demand, but no more architecture improvements.

If they want a drop in replacement, they'll have to contact VIA. Please ignore the price. :P

"Kohlmann outlined Operation Praline, a sting operation in the U.K. that ultimately uncovered a would-be terrorist network in three countries led by Aabid Khan, a then-19-year-old Briton"

"Evan Kohlmann, a U.S. terrorism analyst who advised the prosecution at Khan's trial, said" ..

"Rizwaan Sabir and Hicham Yezza were reported to the police by their own university and detained for six days last May. Sabir had been studying extremism and had asked Yezza to print out a document for him."

--
PROTHERO
Do you believe this crap, Dascombe?

DASCOMBE
It's not our job to believe it,
Lewis. Our job is to tell the
people --

They could be guessing cookies, and that would explain the "it will hurt intermediate systems" excuse they used for not demonstrating it, since they'd need to flood the peer TCP with millions of randomly-guessed initial sequence numbers.

Ugh -- scrap that theory. This report says they can take down a service with ten packets a second. Stuff it -- I'm off to bed. There will still be an Internet in the morning.

http://video.idg.com.au/idgns/2008_08/

shows a listing of the files on their video repository. Try :
    435_olympic_timing_200k.flv ( http://video.idg.com.au/idgns/2008_08/435_olympic_timing_200k.flv )
    435_olympic_timing_350k.flv ( http://video.idg.com.au/idgns/2008_08/435_olympic_timing_350k.flv )
    435_olympic_timing_600k.flv ( http://video.idg.com.au/idgns/2008_08/435_olympic_timing_600k.flv )

http://video.idg.com.au/idgns/2008_08/

shows a listing of the files on their video repository. Try :
    435_olympic_timing_200k.flv ( http://video.idg.com.au/idgns/2008_08/435_olympic_timing_200k.flv )
    435_olympic_timing_350k.flv ( http://video.idg.com.au/idgns/2008_08/435_olympic_timing_350k.flv )
    435_olympic_timing_600k.flv ( http://video.idg.com.au/idgns/2008_08/435_olympic_timing_600k.flv )

http://video.idg.com.au/idgns/2008_08/

shows a listing of the files on their video repository. Try :
    435_olympic_timing_200k.flv ( http://video.idg.com.au/idgns/2008_08/435_olympic_timing_200k.flv )
    435_olympic_timing_350k.flv ( http://video.idg.com.au/idgns/2008_08/435_olympic_timing_350k.flv )
    435_olympic_timing_600k.flv ( http://video.idg.com.au/idgns/2008_08/435_olympic_timing_600k.flv )

http://video.idg.com.au/idgns/2008_08/

shows a listing of the files on their video repository. Try :
    435_olympic_timing_200k.flv ( http://video.idg.com.au/idgns/2008_08/435_olympic_timing_200k.flv )
    435_olympic_timing_350k.flv ( http://video.idg.com.au/idgns/2008_08/435_olympic_timing_350k.flv )
    435_olympic_timing_600k.flv ( http://video.idg.com.au/idgns/2008_08/435_olympic_timing_600k.flv )

what firewall? windows firewall was the only firewall to score a 0 in a comprehensive test of firewall programs.

http://www.pcworld.idg.com.au/index.php/id;159719021

the guy said he plugged in the wrong cable, circumventing his hardware firewall.

It's great that they've made it to Windows, but it needs some polish. And how about a new theme too eh? Windows doesn't look like Windows 3.11 anymore, but this default theme still does. That's an easy fix that should be included in the next version.

Here's the print version for those who don't want to scroll constantly because of the massive ad-walls.
Really, I don't mind ads, but use them tastefully.

Here is a link to the printable version

Google has annouced that they've put the project back up. See http://www.pcworld.idg.com.au/index.php/id;609783846

"MessageLabs' Intelligence Report for April 2008 said that new malicious software removal tools aimed at removing Storm infections were responsible for the sudden reduction in Storm-infected computers." - oh, I guess they mean:

"Microsoft has flushed about 200,000 computers clean of Storm since September, according to Anstis. "

http://www.pcworld.idg.com.au/index.php/id;593529606

Apparantly not

For those of you who don't have Adblock: Printerfriendly Version

Here.

Now I'm back to RingTFA before posting. (Yes, I'm new here).

all of them to be discussed and fixed at a 5 week meeting behind closed doors (flaw 5)

I believe that if you check that out it was a 5 day not 5 week meeting. Which of course make the flaw even greater.

From a PC World article on the topic.

Delegates from 32 national delegations that attended the ISO's five-day Ballot Resolution Meeting (BRM) decided to abandon the required individual review of 900 of 1,100 comments -- or dispositions -- that were filed concerning OOXML. Those comments were filed as part of the ISO's September 2 preliminary vote for approval of OOXML, which went against the Microsoft-developed and ECMA approved document format. The delegates went on to approve the proposed changes.

Windows firewall doesn't count, as it is the only firewall in history to score a 0 (out of 9,625 points) without actually being Malware. http://www.pcworld.idg.com.au/index.php/id;159719021

so yes, there are more than 1 million PCs without Working firewalls, or working anti-virus.

"To my knowledge, it's never been used as such. I implore someone to prove me wrong if I am"

Two cases I'm aware of. A PC World article in Autstrailia dated 2004 says the Dutch cops used it in investigating a gang counterfeiting rail tickets. Look in the below first article, third paragraph under sub-heading "success". Second, China busted 3 for selling counterfeit rail tickets yesterday that used a high end printer to make them.

1. http://www.pcworld.idg.com.au/index.php/id;1002274598
2. http://english.cri.cn/2946/2008/02/14/195@323079.htm

One argument is that If the tracking technology was not there, would the cops have such an easy time picking up the dumb criminals? The other is that some governments would use this to track down those printing dissident materials.

The Aussie PC World has a current article about Red Hat's profits which are also up heavily since last year.

So maybe Novell and Red Hat's recent success is independent of the MS deal.

According to RMS the GPL isn't opensource. And he made a very clear statement some days ago, http://www.pcworld.idg.com.au/index.php/id;211669437;pp;3 "Stallman: The fact that Torvalds says "open source" instead of "free software" shows where he is coming from. I wrote the GNU GPL to defend freedom for all users of all versions of a program. I developed version 3 to do that job better and protect against new threats. Torvalds says he rejects this goal; that's probably why he doesn't appreciate GPL version 3. I respect his right to express his views, even though I think they are foolish. However, if you don't want to lose your freedom, you had better not follow him. " And it's Theos right for self-defense against such people.

Of course you would think that but these were the facts back then if you didn't work for Microsoft. I have to ask you how long it will be before Microsoft offers an unstandardized extension to VC-1 to the studios. If anyone could speculate, you could and I'm thoroughly curious. I've long since stopped believing that all this technology is for fantastic image quality, ease of use and achiving digital nirvana. No, it's about getting royalties. The rest is a side show.

VC-1 and the road it took is now history subject to interpretation. However, I was on several news groups as a fly on the wall with some very connected people where all this was under daily discussion. A lot happened between 2002 and 2006. It was a group I had known during the early days of the ATSC and my ITS affiliations with people coming and going. Also in the group were people I didn't know who appeared to crystal ball what was going on in SMPTE. The proof was what I read in these groups is what actually occurred and was publicly known a few days later. There was no reason to doubt what was being said or what constantly changing pressures were occuring. There were more political hurdles with adoption than technical ones. A fascination for the process is what kept me engaged.

The statements that H.264 outperformed VC-1 were from them and I've confirmed it myself with my own tests. Not in the 2002 DVD Forum era but in 2007 with present day hardware. (yes, H.264 is still a pig to compress) There were plenty of fans of VC-1 as well but standardization was the biggest roadblock to acceptance. The holdup with MPEG LA was real with their onerous licensing terms which would make H.264 unaffordable. That went on for a long time. Microsoft created their own controversy over licensing terms for VC-1 but that ony slowed ratification. The delay the MPEG LA created was the only reason VC-1 had time to get standardized for final inclusion in Blu-ray. Otherwise, Blu-ray would have been finalized much earlier without VC-1 - back when Microsoft was still stonewalling and filibustering SMPTE. VC-1 was apparently in, out, then in again.

If you don't remember the Microsoft announcement about VC-1 entering Final Committee Draft (and a rubber stamp away from ratification) before the actual vote, that occurred when a trigger happy PR person extended an upcoming vote to mean Final Committee Draft Status had occurred and told the trade rags. It was later retracted but not for a week. There was intense pressure to get VC-1 ratified by NAB'06 and someone jumped the gun.

Microsoft had a big booth with lots of partners which would be irrelevant at NAB if VC-1 wasn't at least in FCD. I no longer have these references and you're welcome to doubt me if you like. You can also read this which has been roundly refuted by Joe Kane but encapsulates most of the chatter I was witnessing in real time.

To quote Stallman: "0. To run the program as you wish. 1. To study the source code and change it so the program does what you wish. 2. To redistribute exact copies when you wish, either giving them away or selling them. 3. To distribute copies of your modified versions when you wish."
http://www.pcworld.idg.com.au/index.php/id;211669437;pp;2

It sounds like Stallman is describing a variant of a BSD license since in (2) and (3) he says that you can distribute copies of your modified versions "when you wish". Ok, this statement is in direct contradiction to any GPL license that I've ever read! They require the distribution of your modified versions without choice, it's a requirement that you distribute the source with the binary. Thus Mr. Stallman is caught in a blatant distortion bordering on an outright lie and misrepresentation. At least it's disingenuous on his part.

The GNU-GPL license is communistic in political philosophy. It is anti-capitalistic and anti-freedom in intent and spirit. When you contribute or use software under a GPL license you are joining a communistic collective which has rather draconian rules. You must, if you modify the software and distirbute it, contribute your changes to the collective without any choice in the matter. This is designed to favor users over developers which reveals another distortion by the Supreme Leader of the GPL Commune when he claims that he "appreciates both the huge user base and its large developer base".

Any analysis of the GPL license terms that is honest will show that the license favors end users over developers since the license robs developers of the choice, the freedom of choice, to freely choose to modify the software and publish only the binary! The GPL clearly robs freedom from developers, and thus GPL software isn't "free software" it's "the illusion of freedom with chains attached". Welcome to the soviet inspired GPL-GNU-Collective, what was yours is now ours.

Here is the quote:

"What's more important to you, GNU's huge user base or its large developer base? Stallman: I appreciate them both, but neither is what matters most. We didn't develop GNU just to make it a technical triumph, or just to have a success. Our goal was to win freedom, for ourselves and for you."
http://www.pcworld.idg.com.au/index.php/id;211669437;pp;2

Now, many GPL-Cult members will attempt, vainly, to point out that they are not communists or that they are not members of a mind controlling cult or that the GPL isn't about politics and how dare one compare GPL with Communism. Well, Stallman himself says "Free software is a political movement". Since your politburo leader himself acknowledges that this he is leading a political movement it's valid to ask what kind of political movement is it? Since it requires end users and developers to conform to draconian anti-freedom rules such as being forced, yes forced, to ship modified source code with modified binaries freedom is lost. For this reason alone Stallman's much vaunted "GPL" isn't "free software" it's really "what is yours is ours now and forever"; and rather than "free software" it's "Collective-Software".

Yes, before you start screaming about it, I do intend the negative pejorative meanings of "collective", "commune", "communistic", "cult", "soviet", etc...

I support freedom of choice for all, end users and developers. Developers must have the right to take a "free" piece of software and modify it and distribute it as they "freely" see fit. If they want to distribute it without source then that should be their right. Any software license that prevents this freedom isn't a "free software" license, it's a blocking freedom license. The GPL is the worst of them all in this regards since it legally and politically mandates a "communistic" point of view where the property is collective and the collective imposes it's will, in this case w

To quote Stallman: "0. To run the program as you wish. 1. To study the source code and change it so the program does what you wish. 2. To redistribute exact copies when you wish, either giving them away or selling them. 3. To distribute copies of your modified versions when you wish."
http://www.pcworld.idg.com.au/index.php/id;211669437;pp;2

It sounds like Stallman is describing a variant of a BSD license since in (2) and (3) he says that you can distribute copies of your modified versions "when you wish". Ok, this statement is in direct contradiction to any GPL license that I've ever read! They require the distribution of your modified versions without choice, it's a requirement that you distribute the source with the binary. Thus Mr. Stallman is caught in a blatant distortion bordering on an outright lie and misrepresentation. At least it's disingenuous on his part.

The GNU-GPL license is communistic in political philosophy. It is anti-capitalistic and anti-freedom in intent and spirit. When you contribute or use software under a GPL license you are joining a communistic collective which has rather draconian rules. You must, if you modify the software and distirbute it, contribute your changes to the collective without any choice in the matter. This is designed to favor users over developers which reveals another distortion by the Supreme Leader of the GPL Commune when he claims that he "appreciates both the huge user base and its large developer base".

Any analysis of the GPL license terms that is honest will show that the license favors end users over developers since the license robs developers of the choice, the freedom of choice, to freely choose to modify the software and publish only the binary! The GPL clearly robs freedom from developers, and thus GPL software isn't "free software" it's "the illusion of freedom with chains attached". Welcome to the soviet inspired GPL-GNU-Collective, what was yours is now ours.

Here is the quote:

"What's more important to you, GNU's huge user base or its large developer base? Stallman: I appreciate them both, but neither is what matters most. We didn't develop GNU just to make it a technical triumph, or just to have a success. Our goal was to win freedom, for ourselves and for you."
http://www.pcworld.idg.com.au/index.php/id;211669437;pp;2

Now, many GPL-Cult members will attempt, vainly, to point out that they are not communists or that they are not members of a mind controlling cult or that the GPL isn't about politics and how dare one compare GPL with Communism. Well, Stallman himself says "Free software is a political movement". Since your politburo leader himself acknowledges that this he is leading a political movement it's valid to ask what kind of political movement is it? Since it requires end users and developers to conform to draconian anti-freedom rules such as being forced, yes forced, to ship modified source code with modified binaries freedom is lost. For this reason alone Stallman's much vaunted "GPL" isn't "free software" it's really "what is yours is ours now and forever"; and rather than "free software" it's "Collective-Software".

Yes, before you start screaming about it, I do intend the negative pejorative meanings of "collective", "commune", "communistic", "cult", "soviet", etc...

I support freedom of choice for all, end users and developers. Developers must have the right to take a "free" piece of software and modify it and distribute it as they "freely" see fit. If they want to distribute it without source then that should be their right. Any software license that prevents this freedom isn't a "free software" license, it's a blocking freedom license. The GPL is the worst of them all in this regards since it legally and politically mandates a "communistic" point of view where the property is collective and the collective imposes it's will, in this case w