I've still NEVER had a SINGLE call from a Mac user needing such services!
How about Windows Mobile viruses? Unix? Linux? You mean... malware authors only attack the largest most profitable target?! It's almost... as if... they didn't give a shit about macs! If you're a bad guy are you going to write a program that works on 90% of the computers out there or less than 10%? It's a no brainier. But one things fore sure, with an attitude like yours, once malware authors do begin to attack Apple's products, you'll be the first to go.
.... or download a script (.scr extension) file to your browser to run...
And you have the technical knowledge of a typical geek squad goon, like a previous poster said.scr is not a script. Security through obscurity it not security at all, with users like you, it's just a time delayed bomb that will blow up in faces of Apple's users once their market share reaches a level that the bad guys feel like attacking.
I'd go so far as to say that if you use a Mac, you should TRY to infect yourself sometime.
Here's a better idea, if you think your mac is so secure how about your post your IP address and email here with a little flag that says "I am immune to your hacking attempts" and see how fast your system is compromised.
Why do they have to be mutually exclusive? Both have very real and very unique applications. It would be like saying "who needs this DC bullshit with we have AC?".
Nobody is going to stop from snorting asbestos - sort away. Until some well-meaning busy body discovers you're enjoying it, it will be perfectly legal. Maybe you need a double hit. I'm not going to snort it, or smoke pot, or smoke cigarettes. I'm just not going to tell anyone else they can't do it. I'm not going to throw my life away or ask anyone else to throw their life away keeping people from doing it.
Some people do ignore flood warnings, storm warnings etc, and just "ride it out", but the police do not arrest them or charge them with a crime because people are free to put themselves in danger if they wish to. There are rare exceptions, but they are the exceptions, the rule of law is people can stay put. They may get a fine if they require rescue, and rightfully so, but the fine will be for the rescue, not for putting themselves in danger.
It's not up to you or anyone else what someone does to their own body, it's called freedom. So long as it doesn't harm anyone else, what's wrong with it? The government, more than anything else is subject to the law of unintended consequences. Allowing people to use drugs is certainly better than what happens when the government gets involved, tens of thousands of innocent dead people, billions of money gone, massive government corruption via illegal drug trade, animosity for law enforcement. Ya, I'd rather let people snort whatever the hell they want to snort. And if you don't like Latin phrases here's an American one:
Yeah, gambling and prostitution brought in lots of dough but the biggest moneymaker was the sale of liquor. Prohibition was the greatest thing that ever happened for us.
The government is the worst when it comes to fact finding, checking and reporting. The government claims (in various AdCouncil ads) that cigarettes kill more people than AIDS, car wrecks, heart disease, and cancer combined. Their reasoning is that if you die of heart disease or cancer you may have died from cigarettes ergo you did die from cigarettes even if you had never even seen or smelt a cigarette in your life. And if cigarettes are so god damn deadly why don't they make them illegal? Oh that's right, the government makes more than %50 a pack in taxes. So cigarettes are only evil to the extent that they need to be taxed heavily. It's that sort of evil.
And how many times have you heard the government repeat the lie that smoking marijuana is worse for you than cigarettes or alcohol. I don't want to go into how all of this is pseudo-science and they don't have a single (real) study to stand on. Let me just take it from the common since point of view. Nobody has ever died from smoking too much marijuana. People die every day from alcohol related illnesses, violence, car wrecks and more, and we already know about the evils of cigarettes from the AdCouncil.
But the government made marijuana illegal. Even though Thomas Jefferson smoke and grew it, even though George Washington smoked and grew it. Even though Thomas Paine said of the U.S.: "[our] Hemp flourishes even to rankness..." in Common Sense. Was it evil then, but people just didn't know it? Funny that, now that I thinking about it. The intellectual giants on who's shoulders we stand on smoked Marijuana. Shit, Carl Sagan smoked marijuana and had the wit to invent the geosynchronous satellite! Killer weed indeed!
But all of that was apparently a sham. Marijuana is so insidious and evil, according to our government, that we need to sacrifice the lives of literally hundreds of cops each year, and thousands of civilians both here in the U.S. and in other countries that export illicit drugs to the U.S.. Undermining trust in law enforcement, through corruption and creating an adversarial role between the citizen (suspected drug user) and the cops (more suspected drug users). All in the name of "We don't want Johnny to get stoned." or "We don't want Timmy to shoot up". All the while hundreds of people are dying from the 'safe, legal' drug alcohol.
Here's a wild idea. Freedom. Freedom to engage in whatever vice we feel like so long as it doesn't harm anyone else. The Declaration of Independence talks about "Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness." I don't know if the founding fathers were stoned when they wrote that but I think they mean the most important thing is not whatever the government wants to do to make you happy, but what you the individual wants to be happy.
If it makes me happy to smoke a joint what on earth gives anyone power over me to tell me I can't? I'm not harming anyone (but myself arguably), and if you start making laws that say "you can't harm yourself" that's a slippery slope we are already sliding down. Anyone here think that fatty or sugary foods and drinks won't be illegal in 10 more years at the rate we're going? "But you're going to kill yourself with that soft drink!, it has sugar! And we all know now Sugar is Toxic!.
For anyone who says "If we make it legal more people will use it.". Well I can only prey that this is true. The more people that choose to smoke a joint instead of drink a beer, the more lives will be saved! And by simply preventing the government from tampering in our personal lives! We get more freedom, the government doesn't have to hire people to "inspect" us, or prisons to incarcerate us, and would therefore not need to tax us so damn much. Win win! And I'm sure the net sum of lives saved would outweigh any moral concerns anyone would have.
Falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus. False in one thing, false in everything. Beca
This is from Anonymous Coward, whom I was replying to:
Funny, my 10 foot component cable has never had any problems with the analog signal it carries, even when watching full 1080p movies.But I have had all kinds of audio problems with cheap HDMI cables due to EMI issues in the area, which I don't experience over the digital optical audio connector I use along side my component video.
But hey, if having DRM attached to your signal is really worth it to you, by all means use HDMI.
I'm pretty sure he's stating that he prefers analog component cables to the digital HDMI cable. He claims some strange EMF is preventing his coax S/PDIF from working. He also claims superiority because his analog stream doesn't have DRM in it even though he uses digital audio. IMHO it's so much incoherent nonsense.
You don't have to take a sarcastic tone with me. Why are you trying to pick a fight? Did I offend you somehow? Did you get beat up by an HDMI cable or something? I would have much rather been civil, but you really don't give me much wiggle room here.
But hey, if having DRM attached to your signal is really worth it to you, by all means use HDMI.
Seriously? You're trying to claim the analog is superior to digital? The pixels are not the pixels that are on the source image, doesn't that bother you? Doesn't it bother you that you're seeing an interpolated image? That your image isn't 1:1 with what your recording source is? That the pixel that should have been at 1005x380 is actually at 1005.7x380.1 and your TV doesn't have a 1005.7 or a 380.1 so it makes the image up through interpolation and it does it for the whole image? So you're taking a clean ADD or DDD stream and turning it into a filthy analog stream, then claiming superiority? Brilliant! I hope you enjoy your shittastisc picture.
But I have had all kinds of audio problems with cheap HDMI cables due to EMI issues in the area
Don't get mad, I'm really trying to be helpful here. I promise you you're not getting EMF with your S/PDIF cable, or the S/PDIF built into the HDMI. More likely it's a bitness or frequency incompatibility between the source and target, seeing how that's the most common problem and I've never even heard of anyone with an attenuated S/PDIF signal. Besides, if you had such dreadful EMF as to cause S/PDIF to stop working you sure as hell would see it in your analog video.
which I don't experience over the digital optical audio connector I use
Doesn't that use DRM?
I've worked in bars where we had standard coaxial cable along with splitters and amps, exceeding 100 foot of length, and never had any issues with signal degradation or interference. The bulk of the signal issues with cables of any type are actually due to poorly made or faulty connectors, not the cabling itself.
EMF interference is not a made up thing. And there's a hell of a lot more to it than "poorly made or faulty connectors".
My point is simply that claiming shielding doesn't matter at all is just as wrong as claiming you need to be shielded against a nuclear blast.
If shielding doesn't matter on a 100 foot run with cat 5, I'm sure it won't matter on lesser runs with professionally made cables. I've never seen a cable that was over 100 feet at an electronics store, like Best Buy, Comp USA, Fry's Etc. And that's the topic of the article. So I'll alter my statement a bit for you: shielding for HDMI cables, under 100 feet is totally useless.
So the phrase "unshielded twisted pair" is a little bit of an oxymoron.
Yeah, that's great. Now try running a bundle of a dozen of those all tied together with a zip-tie. Shielding might not matter much when you only have one connection and no local outside EMI sources, but in many situations it's not that simple. Or put another way, your limited experiment is not a good scientific sample of normal operating environments.
Actually I used zip ties, and were three CAT 5 (8x3 conductors with 4 left over if I remember correctly, it may have been 8x4) cables, I tied it every 4 inches or so. I ran across two workstations and all the wires involved, past a WIFI base point, past a big brouter/switch/whatev
I'm just referring to the crap we have been forced to use since the days of the XT. Analog VGA cables that cause ghosting just from coiling it. 3.5mm jacks that aren't properly shielded in the computer. When we didn't have a choice but to use RCA connectors to connect sound to our computers. The sort of thing that makes you want to run away screaming from consumer electronics.
This may be a little extreme, but what I do, and other studio guitarists do, is hook up what's called a direct box to the guitar. They first shield the shit out of the guitar by covering everything (internally mind you, there shouldn't be any foil visible when you're done) with aluminum foil to get rid of the incoming noise the internal wiring/switches may pick up, make sure you have grounded the strings by attaching the internal wiring's ground string to the bridge of the guitar. Shield the pick guard (cover the inside with aluminum).
Now hookup the direct box. You can buy a direct box for about $50 from any good sized music store. Get a short 1/4 patch cable, this way the cable, which acts as an antenna, is as short as possible. Plug the patch cable from your guitar into the direct box, then glue/tape/whatever the direct box to the guitar. Now you have a low impedance (low Z/XLR/whatever) guitar that won't pickup noise.
Of course now you need an amp with an XLR input, most amps > $1000 have such inputs, and of course every decent recording/mixing/preamp/effect/whatever uses XLR. The trick is isolating where the noise is coming from (the guitar's wires) and shielding them with something cheap and reflective (aluminum foil).
I'm just an amateur that loves to experiment so I'm sure there are better ways to do this. I'm sure tons of the technophiles on slashdot have better ways of doing the same thing.
About the only thing you said that is true here is that you're not really qualified to speak about it. There are more "checksums, checkbits, res etc" than you can shake a space worm at. See all thoes things that say "bit" and "stream" and "PCM". Ya, all those things have "checksums, checkbits, res etc". What I would really like to know is why you bothered posting when all you had to say was so much garbage? Does it somehow make you feel more important to "educate" people even when what you're saying is at best a guess and at worst totally wrong? I sort of understand HDMI, but you are more of a mystery to me.
HDMI uses the Consumer Electronics Association/Electronic Industries Alliance 861 standards. HDMI 1.0 to HDMI 1.2a uses the EIA/CEA-861-B video standard, and HDMI 1.3+ uses the CEA-861-D video standard.[2] The CEA-861-D document defines "video formats and waveforms; colorimetry and quantization; transport of compressed and uncompressed, as well as Linear Pulse Code Modulation (LPCM), audio; carriage of auxiliary data; and implementations of the Video Electronics Standards Association (VESA) Enhanced Extended Display Identification Data Standard (E-EDID)."[42]
To ensure baseline interoperability between different HDMI-sources and displays (as well as backward compatibility with the electrically compatible DVI standard), all HDMI compliant devices are required to support sRGB video 4:4:4, at 8 bits per component. Support for YCbCr color-space and higher color-depths ("deep color") are optional. HDMI permits xvYCC 4:4:4 (8–16 bits per component), YCbCr 4:4:4 (8–16 bits per component), or YCbCr 4:2:2 (8–12 bits per component).[43][44] The color spaces that can be used by HDMI are ITU-R BT.601, ITU-R BT.709-5 and IEC 61966-2-4.[43]
For digital audio, if an HDMI device supports audio, it is required to support the baseline format: stereo (uncompressed) PCM. Other formats are optional, with HDMI allowing up to 8 channels of uncompressed audio at sample sizes of 16-bit, 20-bit and 24-bit, with sample rates of 32 kHz, 44.1 kHz, 48 kHz, 88.2 kHz, 96 kHz, 176.4 kHz and 192 kHz.[21][45] HDMI also supports any IEC 61937-compliant compressed audio stream, such as Dolby Digital and DTS, and up to 8 channels of one-bit DSD audio (used on Super Audio CDs) at rates up to four times that of Super Audio CD.[45] With version 1.3, HDMI supports lossless compressed audio streams Dolby TrueHD and DTS-HD Master Audio.[45] As with the YCbCr video, device support for audio is optional.
The HDMI standard was not designed to include passing closed caption data (for example, subtitles) to the television for decoding.[46] As such, any closed caption stream has to be decoded and included as an image in the video stream(s) prior to transmission over an HDMI cable to be viewed on the DTV. This limits the caption style (even for digital captions) to only that decoded at the source prior to HDMI transmission. This also prevents closed captions when transmission over HDMI is required for upconversion. For example, a DVD player sending an upscaled 720p/1080i format via HDMI to an HDTV has no method to pass Closed Captioning data so that the HDTV can decode as there is no line 21 VBI in that format.
To prove to my friend that super-shielded uber-expensive HDMI cables are a load of shit, I took a cheap 5 foot HDMI cable, cut it in two, soldered between the two molded connectors 100 feet (x3 cables) of CAT 5 cable. After un-sleeving and splicing what seemed like two dozen conductors I had a mass of unshielded twisted pair with two molded HDMI connectors between them, I ran the 100 foot cable on top of AC power cables, speaker cable, coax, plugged it into my monitor and it worked perfectly. The only reason I'm not still using the cable is because one of the dozen or so solder points broken in the rats nest of splicing and I would get a crazy scrambled screen (or no image), after a few dozen technical taps the splice came apart and I didn't want to take another hour to put it back together - and lets face it, it was ugly. So there it is if anyone is curious, you can run HDMI over CAT 5 for 100 feet without enough attenuation or noise to break the signal.
And someone else mentioned that the length of the cable adds to the delay in the signal. Cable times are measured in nanoseconds, monitor refresh rates are measured in milliseconds. It would be like saying: I dunno if my RAM can handle the speed of my new hard drive. The length of the cable might add a few nanoseconds to your response time, but you cannot see the difference, you are not a robot. Long analog signal cables on the other hand can't run 3 feet without getting signal noise and causing ghosting and all sorts of other weird artifacts. All I can say is thank god all the analog A/V cables are a thing of the past. If I ever have to hear (OR SEE!) a 60hz hum again in my life it will be too soon.
You are obviously still in high school or middle school, your grammar is terrible, and when you're not outright stating a falsehood you're totally incoherent. Did you even read the message you wrote? I cringe for your future employer.
Missed a closing tag back there... here's the readable form.
No. I'm not sure what you're looking at, but it reads fine for everyone but you.
Since neither is true of either link I provided WHY are you assuming that?
Because the devices you linked to are so incredibly lame that I was hoping you weren't serious about using them. I thought it was more a Proof of concept.
Yes it does. Software.
Apple is epic in their abuse of their developer community. Intentionally vague TOS language, last minute app rejections, locking down their platform to only allow apps that don't compete with their apps, not even allowing other IDEs to be used! Then there's the restrictions on content! Do you seriously thing Steve Jobs will allow a GTA style game on the platform? There is more in Apple to scare away software developers than in any other hardware platform, that you suggest that this is one of their strong points speaks volumes of your knowledge of the subject.
The very definition of "third party" is that Apple is not making it.
I know very well what third party means, I don't care about third party bull shit for any platform. If the platform cannot survive on its own out of the box then what the fuck was the developer thinking. Of course in this case they were thinking "This isn't primarily for games, so lets remove the buttons". And the reason every portable game system has buttons and a D-pad is because they are required to play games.
....I'd say that's pretty significant "respect" from the most well known game developer on the planet.
I'm not bashing the hardware's capabilities, I'm telling you without a decent control surface the thing is rather useless. I don't much care what game is on the platform, if it's done by pressing virtual buttons and hefting a screen to use an accelerometer, all on a inferior size screen, I'm not going to play it. I'll stick to my traditional keyboard/mouse/joy/pad/stick on my 42" LCD until something better comes along and this is not better by any stretch of the imagination.
"Allows"? It's up to the game maker. Apple doesn't care. Apple has never cared what you made work with what.
Apple does every thing but "not care". about what is made to work with what. If you read slashdot, you must have been exposed to the numerous times Apple has caused an uproar because they didn't want 'something' to work with 'something', from flash, to porn, to IDEs and much much more.
What's hilarious there is your comment about money goes right to failing to understand the term "third party" which makes me think you aren't a gamer AT ALL. "Buying the buttons" sends money to anyone EXCEPT APPLE.
Then you say something that is perhaps ignorant, but elucidates your age. You suggest that Apple doesn't make money from from third party hardware. Apple, most defiantly makes money, and shit tons of it, through licensing of third party hardware. That you don't know that once again speaks volumes of you. I assure you I've been playing video games long before you were even a twinkle in your daddy's eye. My nerd credentials are irrevocable, and I most definitely know what I'm talking about.
I'm interested in reality first of all, in describing what IS. You frankly seem not just disinterested in that, but as noted seem to have taken an active avoidance to any understanding of what is.
I really don't understand what you're saying. If you're trying to say "I'm interested in re
So many demonstrably false statements (Apple won because of this, Apple invented this) I don't know where to start. I'll just get the low hanging fruit, maybe someone else can do the rest of the cleanup.
I heard pretty similar comments when the Wii came out first (no HD, no conventional controller, etc.) and yet it was a huge success.
The Wii came with conventional controllers as well as the option to plug in 'classic' controllers. There isn't a game for WII that I'm aware of that didn't use the traditional control surface of 'd-pad + buttons'. They may have incorporated the accelerometer and 'mouse' control as much as possible, but mostly to the detriment of the gaming experience. I can think of some times where I wanted to throw my Wii controller out the window while playing Zelda. But the idea that Wii didn't come with conventional controllers is false.
It's a fairly common mistake to think only the hard core games matter.
Oh, it's so common? I'm sure you see that happen a lot. Maybe you can provide an example.
They only do matter if you have a hard core game.
What?
For all the rest it's the casual gamers that count and there ease of use is the key.
Huh? Who is "all the rest". And I thought enjoyment of the game was paramount. Aren't games supposed to be challenging? Ease of use? Are we talking about a handicap bathroom stall or video games?
If you were to add the buttons, a mouse and/or a joystick the lovely touchscreen becomes a regular monitor and is ill suited to deal with the dedicated gaming rigs (laptop or desktop) and won't be much competition for the next gen gaming consoles, even more so when you consider these newer gaming consoles will be running 1080p on a 60" 3D screen.
I cannot see how someone could implement two player "Flight Control" using buttons, a joystick and a mouse and get it to be remotely as enjoyable as the version on the iPad.
Is the iPad a fun and convenient way to look at web pages and read books? Maybe. A flight simulator it is not.
The best flight simulator setup is a yoke/stick, throttle, pedals and a huge LCD screen or projector and a TRACKIR, and you would probably have enough left over from not buying an iPad to buy a few games like: Microsoft Flight Simulator, Lock On Modern Air Combat, IL-8 or any of the other totally awesome flight sim's for PC. But don't take my word for it, ask any major airline or military using PC simulators - and not iPads.
Personally I think the FPS genre has been done to death like the 2D platform genre before that.
So because you've declared FPS and platform games dead the whole lack of controller doesn't matter? I'm sorry, did the iPad invent a new ground breaking genre that I'm not aware of? Or are the same genres every system has had since the beginning of time? Seems to me they make a whole lot of FPSs and platform games for the iPad and then try to duct tape together controls that emulate buttons/controllers after the fact. But if you think that's the best control surface for... whatever, I guess you have your right to be wrong.
If you're holding a controller, the iPad becomes a TV, assuming you'll put down the iPad to hold the controller that is. Once the the iPad is just a screen it has nothing over any of the other entrants into the arena. Oh besides it's locked down by Apple so you can kiss off any sort of MAME like setup without jailbreaking the damn thing.
I don't really give a rat's ass what sort of "third party accessory" Apple makes for the iPad, it's not a gaming platform without a decent control surface. Once you add a 'regular' control surface (joystick/keyboard/mouse) it looses its novelty and becomes another gaming console, but without many games or respect from its developers.
I can only hope that Apple allows a cross platform FPS so people playing with an iPad can compete against people playing on a computer. I reminds me of "Shadow Run", a FPS that allowed xbox players to play with PC players. Xbox players used a joystick, and of course PC players used their mouse/keyboard. Guess who won.
You seem more intrested in how much money it will make Apple. I'm only interested in if the thing would make a decent gaming platform, and it would not.
Without the traditional set of buttons, a joystick and for FPSers a mouse it's really a non-starter. Pressing virtual buttons on the screen will never be as satisfying or as technically accurate (a big deal for video games) as a physical button/stick/mouse. If you were to add the buttons, a mouse and/or a joystick the lovely touchscreen becomes a regular monitor and is ill suited to deal with the dedicated gaming rigs (laptop or desktop) and won't be much competition for the next gen gaming consoles, even more so when you consider these newer gaming consoles will be running 1080p on a 60" 3D screen. You may have some weekend gamers pick up a bubble buster game or two in lieu of reading a book or watching TV but hardcore gamers will never touch it.
The word "tablet" existed before Apple made the iPad, and it described what a tablet looks like eons before the iPad existed. Technology is becoming compact enough that a tablet computer is starting to look more like a tablet. And as far as prior ideas go... Ever see any science fiction movie ever? Maybe Apple can sue Moses for coming down from the mountain with his copyright/patent infringing tablets.
You can very easily convert a rainbow table into a rainbow table + predefined salt, a simple SQL statement and 10 minutes later your 1TB rainbow table becomes rainbow+salt. If you don't keep your salt a secret you may as well not use it.
Without a rainbow table, you can still do dictionary attacks of weak passwords
That would only work if you had the hashing function with the salt string. If you're talking about plain old brute force attack against the hashes, well that won't work without the hash function that has the salt string. You certainly can't do brute force attacks against a live port, someone would (god help us - hopefully) notice you. You would need a functioning copy of the hash function with the salt, the entire source code (where the salt is kept) for the site would need to be compromised not just he database.
Now it may well be that the entire source code + SHA1 Salt for the site was compromised. If that's the case, I stand corrected.
That simple passwords were revealed shows a lack of understanding or incompetence. The reason only "simple" passwords were revealed was from a poorly made SHA1 hashing function. Yes this is pure conjecture, but it is the only scenario that fits the facts.
The hackers acquired the database with the hashed passwords. Then the hackers ran the password hashes against a rainbow table which returned the matches for the simple passwords. Now the reason this is incompetence or ignorance is the simple inclusion of a half dozen or so special characters appended to the back of the password during the hash function would make these passwords unmatchable to all but the largest, slowest (super computer realm) rainbow tables. That's why the 'strong' passwords were not cracked.
To defeat all but the largest rainbow tables everyone uses this method is called SHA1+Salt, not my idea but a damn good one. Using salt in your SHA1 hash function prevents this sort of thing from happening. Imagine how many other accounts on other systems are now compromised!
Now there is a chance that the salt string was compromised also, but that's probably not likely because the salt is not (in my experience) is not stored in the database. Allowing SQL injection on a damn SQL site is bad enough, but could reasonably be a single bad coder, having such poor security protocols is incompetence on a grand scale.
I'm just glad the amateur hour over at MySql.com doesn't have my l/p.
There are two GPL licenses and they are both copyleft licenses. There is the ordinary and there is the lesser. The lesser GPL (LGPL from here on in) is used on software you want to allow people to recompile/include in their own closed source works they can then resell without the consent of the copyright holder.
On the other hand, the ordinary GPL states that you cannot include the work in closed source works, only other open source works. With both, if you attempt to branch the work, the new work will still be covered by the license used to create the original work.
So to sum it up:
LGPL -> can be used in new closed source products and resold. For example AForge, an imaging framework, uses a LGPL.
GPL -> can only be used in other GPL style licensed products. For example Quake3 source. You cannot use (compile) this in a closed source project.
The FSF wants you to use the GPL to force more people to write open source software. I'm all for that.
IMHO Apple is an enemy to open source software. They will drink from the open source font, but when it comes to opening their own software forget it. They hijack FreeBSD and turn it into an abomination of closed source commercialism, flying in the face of everything the copyleft license stands for. That's why instead of just switching their whole operation to open source ordinary GPL they scurry away and remove ordinary GPL software and scour the internet for other LGPL suckers they can suck the life out of to pad their own pockets.
Apple, stop it with the free ride, it took millions of man hours that you didn't pay for to build the software you so arrogantly call OSX. I love the prorogation of FOSS but I hate the way Apple treats everyone. Customers, fans, foes, they are all scum to Apple, to be used and discarded when they become a liability, Samba in this case, but there are many more. If Apple were any friend of open source they would not just use open source, they would be open source and license their software using the GPL.
The alien overlords designed their computer system to "just do what the user wants", once Jeff figured out the admin password, which ironically was "password" he had full control of the system, he called it a vrius so people would understand, but all he typed was del *.*. Incredible alien technology!
Slashdot Mirror
How about Windows Mobile viruses? Unix? Linux? You mean... malware authors only attack the largest most profitable target?! It's almost... as if... they didn't give a shit about macs! If you're a bad guy are you going to write a program that works on 90% of the computers out there or less than 10%? It's a no brainier. But one things fore sure, with an attitude like yours, once malware authors do begin to attack Apple's products, you'll be the first to go.
And you have the technical knowledge of a typical geek squad goon, like a previous poster said .scr is not a script. Security through obscurity it not security at all, with users like you, it's just a time delayed bomb that will blow up in faces of Apple's users once their market share reaches a level that the bad guys feel like attacking.
Here's a better idea, if you think your mac is so secure how about your post your IP address and email here with a little flag that says "I am immune to your hacking attempts" and see how fast your system is compromised.
Why do they have to be mutually exclusive? Both have very real and very unique applications. It would be like saying "who needs this DC bullshit with we have AC?".
Nova Ep. 2 Making Stuff Smaller @ 21:30.
http://movies.netflix.com/WiMovie/Making_Stuff_Nova_Making_Stuff_Cleaner/70171398?trkid=2429429
How to make Graphene with a piece of scotch tape.
Some people do ignore flood warnings, storm warnings etc, and just "ride it out", but the police do not arrest them or charge them with a crime because people are free to put themselves in danger if they wish to. There are rare exceptions, but they are the exceptions, the rule of law is people can stay put. They may get a fine if they require rescue, and rightfully so, but the fine will be for the rescue, not for putting themselves in danger.
It's not up to you or anyone else what someone does to their own body, it's called freedom. So long as it doesn't harm anyone else, what's wrong with it? The government, more than anything else is subject to the law of unintended consequences. Allowing people to use drugs is certainly better than what happens when the government gets involved, tens of thousands of innocent dead people, billions of money gone, massive government corruption via illegal drug trade, animosity for law enforcement. Ya, I'd rather let people snort whatever the hell they want to snort. And if you don't like Latin phrases here's an American one:
From Interview with Al Capone – Public Enemy #1
To quote Clinton: "It depends on what the meaning of the word "is" is".
The government is the worst when it comes to fact finding, checking and reporting. The government claims (in various AdCouncil ads) that cigarettes kill more people than AIDS, car wrecks, heart disease, and cancer combined. Their reasoning is that if you die of heart disease or cancer you may have died from cigarettes ergo you did die from cigarettes even if you had never even seen or smelt a cigarette in your life. And if cigarettes are so god damn deadly why don't they make them illegal? Oh that's right, the government makes more than %50 a pack in taxes. So cigarettes are only evil to the extent that they need to be taxed heavily. It's that sort of evil.
And how many times have you heard the government repeat the lie that smoking marijuana is worse for you than cigarettes or alcohol. I don't want to go into how all of this is pseudo-science and they don't have a single (real) study to stand on. Let me just take it from the common since point of view. Nobody has ever died from smoking too much marijuana. People die every day from alcohol related illnesses, violence, car wrecks and more, and we already know about the evils of cigarettes from the AdCouncil.
But the government made marijuana illegal. Even though Thomas Jefferson smoke and grew it, even though George Washington smoked and grew it. Even though Thomas Paine said of the U.S.: "[our] Hemp flourishes even to rankness..." in Common Sense. Was it evil then, but people just didn't know it? Funny that, now that I thinking about it. The intellectual giants on who's shoulders we stand on smoked Marijuana. Shit, Carl Sagan smoked marijuana and had the wit to invent the geosynchronous satellite! Killer weed indeed!
But all of that was apparently a sham. Marijuana is so insidious and evil, according to our government, that we need to sacrifice the lives of literally hundreds of cops each year, and thousands of civilians both here in the U.S. and in other countries that export illicit drugs to the U.S.. Undermining trust in law enforcement, through corruption and creating an adversarial role between the citizen (suspected drug user) and the cops (more suspected drug users). All in the name of "We don't want Johnny to get stoned." or "We don't want Timmy to shoot up". All the while hundreds of people are dying from the 'safe, legal' drug alcohol.
Here's a wild idea. Freedom. Freedom to engage in whatever vice we feel like so long as it doesn't harm anyone else. The Declaration of Independence talks about "Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness." I don't know if the founding fathers were stoned when they wrote that but I think they mean the most important thing is not whatever the government wants to do to make you happy, but what you the individual wants to be happy.
If it makes me happy to smoke a joint what on earth gives anyone power over me to tell me I can't? I'm not harming anyone (but myself arguably), and if you start making laws that say "you can't harm yourself" that's a slippery slope we are already sliding down. Anyone here think that fatty or sugary foods and drinks won't be illegal in 10 more years at the rate we're going? "But you're going to kill yourself with that soft drink!, it has sugar! And we all know now Sugar is Toxic!.
For anyone who says "If we make it legal more people will use it.". Well I can only prey that this is true. The more people that choose to smoke a joint instead of drink a beer, the more lives will be saved! And by simply preventing the government from tampering in our personal lives! We get more freedom, the government doesn't have to hire people to "inspect" us, or prisons to incarcerate us, and would therefore not need to tax us so damn much. Win win! And I'm sure the net sum of lives saved would outweigh any moral concerns anyone would have.
Falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus. False in one thing, false in everything. Beca
I'm pretty sure he's stating that he prefers analog component cables to the digital HDMI cable. He claims some strange EMF is preventing his coax S/PDIF from working. He also claims superiority because his analog stream doesn't have DRM in it even though he uses digital audio. IMHO it's so much incoherent nonsense.
Wow! That's just what I needed. Now I need one as a coupler an not a wall plate.
Seriously? You're trying to claim the analog is superior to digital? The pixels are not the pixels that are on the source image, doesn't that bother you? Doesn't it bother you that you're seeing an interpolated image? That your image isn't 1:1 with what your recording source is? That the pixel that should have been at 1005x380 is actually at 1005.7x380.1 and your TV doesn't have a 1005.7 or a 380.1 so it makes the image up through interpolation and it does it for the whole image? So you're taking a clean ADD or DDD stream and turning it into a filthy analog stream, then claiming superiority? Brilliant! I hope you enjoy your shittastisc picture.
Don't get mad, I'm really trying to be helpful here. I promise you you're not getting EMF with your S/PDIF cable, or the S/PDIF built into the HDMI. More likely it's a bitness or frequency incompatibility between the source and target, seeing how that's the most common problem and I've never even heard of anyone with an attenuated S/PDIF signal. Besides, if you had such dreadful EMF as to cause S/PDIF to stop working you sure as hell would see it in your analog video.
Doesn't that use DRM?
EMF interference is not a made up thing. And there's a hell of a lot more to it than "poorly made or faulty connectors".
If shielding doesn't matter on a 100 foot run with cat 5, I'm sure it won't matter on lesser runs with professionally made cables. I've never seen a cable that was over 100 feet at an electronics store, like Best Buy, Comp USA, Fry's Etc. And that's the topic of the article. So I'll alter my statement a bit for you: shielding for HDMI cables, under 100 feet is totally useless.
It's not an oxymoron, "unshielded twisted pair" is a type of cable. not to be confused with another common type of cable "shielded twisted pair".. Since we were talking about cabling I though I'd be specific.
Actually I used zip ties, and were three CAT 5 (8x3 conductors with 4 left over if I remember correctly, it may have been 8x4) cables, I tied it every 4 inches or so. I ran across two workstations and all the wires involved, past a WIFI base point, past a big brouter/switch/whatev
I'm just referring to the crap we have been forced to use since the days of the XT. Analog VGA cables that cause ghosting just from coiling it. 3.5mm jacks that aren't properly shielded in the computer. When we didn't have a choice but to use RCA connectors to connect sound to our computers. The sort of thing that makes you want to run away screaming from consumer electronics.
This may be a little extreme, but what I do, and other studio guitarists do, is hook up what's called a direct box to the guitar. They first shield the shit out of the guitar by covering everything (internally mind you, there shouldn't be any foil visible when you're done) with aluminum foil to get rid of the incoming noise the internal wiring/switches may pick up, make sure you have grounded the strings by attaching the internal wiring's ground string to the bridge of the guitar. Shield the pick guard (cover the inside with aluminum).
Now hookup the direct box. You can buy a direct box for about $50 from any good sized music store. Get a short 1/4 patch cable, this way the cable, which acts as an antenna, is as short as possible. Plug the patch cable from your guitar into the direct box, then glue/tape/whatever the direct box to the guitar. Now you have a low impedance (low Z/XLR/whatever) guitar that won't pickup noise.
Of course now you need an amp with an XLR input, most amps > $1000 have such inputs, and of course every decent recording/mixing/preamp/effect/whatever uses XLR. The trick is isolating where the noise is coming from (the guitar's wires) and shielding them with something cheap and reflective (aluminum foil).
I'm just an amateur that loves to experiment so I'm sure there are better ways to do this. I'm sure tons of the technophiles on slashdot have better ways of doing the same thing.
Here's the link to the specifications:
From the WIKI:
To prove to my friend that super-shielded uber-expensive HDMI cables are a load of shit, I took a cheap 5 foot HDMI cable, cut it in two, soldered between the two molded connectors 100 feet (x3 cables) of CAT 5 cable. After un-sleeving and splicing what seemed like two dozen conductors I had a mass of unshielded twisted pair with two molded HDMI connectors between them, I ran the 100 foot cable on top of AC power cables, speaker cable, coax, plugged it into my monitor and it worked perfectly. The only reason I'm not still using the cable is because one of the dozen or so solder points broken in the rats nest of splicing and I would get a crazy scrambled screen (or no image), after a few dozen technical taps the splice came apart and I didn't want to take another hour to put it back together - and lets face it, it was ugly. So there it is if anyone is curious, you can run HDMI over CAT 5 for 100 feet without enough attenuation or noise to break the signal.
And someone else mentioned that the length of the cable adds to the delay in the signal. Cable times are measured in nanoseconds, monitor refresh rates are measured in milliseconds. It would be like saying: I dunno if my RAM can handle the speed of my new hard drive. The length of the cable might add a few nanoseconds to your response time, but you cannot see the difference, you are not a robot. Long analog signal cables on the other hand can't run 3 feet without getting signal noise and causing ghosting and all sorts of other weird artifacts. All I can say is thank god all the analog A/V cables are a thing of the past. If I ever have to hear (OR SEE!) a 60hz hum again in my life it will be too soon.
No. I'm not sure what you're looking at, but it reads fine for everyone but you.
Because the devices you linked to are so incredibly lame that I was hoping you weren't serious about using them. I thought it was more a Proof of concept.
Apple is epic in their abuse of their developer community. Intentionally vague TOS language, last minute app rejections, locking down their platform to only allow apps that don't compete with their apps, not even allowing other IDEs to be used! Then there's the restrictions on content! Do you seriously thing Steve Jobs will allow a GTA style game on the platform? There is more in Apple to scare away software developers than in any other hardware platform, that you suggest that this is one of their strong points speaks volumes of your knowledge of the subject.
I know very well what third party means, I don't care about third party bull shit for any platform. If the platform cannot survive on its own out of the box then what the fuck was the developer thinking. Of course in this case they were thinking "This isn't primarily for games, so lets remove the buttons". And the reason every portable game system has buttons and a D-pad is because they are required to play games.
I'm not bashing the hardware's capabilities, I'm telling you without a decent control surface the thing is rather useless. I don't much care what game is on the platform, if it's done by pressing virtual buttons and hefting a screen to use an accelerometer, all on a inferior size screen, I'm not going to play it. I'll stick to my traditional keyboard/mouse/joy/pad/stick on my 42" LCD until something better comes along and this is not better by any stretch of the imagination.
Apple does every thing but "not care". about what is made to work with what. If you read slashdot, you must have been exposed to the numerous times Apple has caused an uproar because they didn't want 'something' to work with 'something', from flash, to porn, to IDEs and much much more.
Then you say something that is perhaps ignorant, but elucidates your age. You suggest that Apple doesn't make money from from third party hardware. Apple, most defiantly makes money, and shit tons of it, through licensing of third party hardware. That you don't know that once again speaks volumes of you. I assure you I've been playing video games long before you were even a twinkle in your daddy's eye. My nerd credentials are irrevocable, and I most definitely know what I'm talking about.
I really don't understand what you're saying. If you're trying to say "I'm interested in re
The Wii came with conventional controllers as well as the option to plug in 'classic' controllers. There isn't a game for WII that I'm aware of that didn't use the traditional control surface of 'd-pad + buttons'. They may have incorporated the accelerometer and 'mouse' control as much as possible, but mostly to the detriment of the gaming experience. I can think of some times where I wanted to throw my Wii controller out the window while playing Zelda. But the idea that Wii didn't come with conventional controllers is false.
Oh, it's so common? I'm sure you see that happen a lot. Maybe you can provide an example.
What?
Huh? Who is "all the rest". And I thought enjoyment of the game was paramount. Aren't games supposed to be challenging? Ease of use? Are we talking about a handicap bathroom stall or video games?
I'm getting a headache now.
Is the iPad a fun and convenient way to look at web pages and read books? Maybe. A flight simulator it is not.
The best flight simulator setup is a yoke/stick, throttle, pedals and a huge LCD screen or projector and a TRACKIR, and you would probably have enough left over from not buying an iPad to buy a few games like: Microsoft Flight Simulator, Lock On Modern Air Combat, IL-8 or any of the other totally awesome flight sim's for PC. But don't take my word for it, ask any major airline or military using PC simulators - and not iPads.
So because you've declared FPS and platform games dead the whole lack of controller doesn't matter? I'm sorry, did the iPad invent a new ground breaking genre that I'm not aware of? Or are the same genres every system has had since the beginning of time? Seems to me they make a whole lot of FPSs and platform games for the iPad and then try to duct tape together controls that emulate buttons/controllers after the fact. But if you think that's the best control surface for... whatever, I guess you have your right to be wrong.
If you're holding a controller, the iPad becomes a TV, assuming you'll put down the iPad to hold the controller that is. Once the the iPad is just a screen it has nothing over any of the other entrants into the arena. Oh besides it's locked down by Apple so you can kiss off any sort of MAME like setup without jailbreaking the damn thing.
I don't really give a rat's ass what sort of "third party accessory" Apple makes for the iPad, it's not a gaming platform without a decent control surface. Once you add a 'regular' control surface (joystick/keyboard/mouse) it looses its novelty and becomes another gaming console, but without many games or respect from its developers.
I can only hope that Apple allows a cross platform FPS so people playing with an iPad can compete against people playing on a computer. I reminds me of "Shadow Run", a FPS that allowed xbox players to play with PC players. Xbox players used a joystick, and of course PC players used their mouse/keyboard. Guess who won.
You seem more intrested in how much money it will make Apple. I'm only interested in if the thing would make a decent gaming platform, and it would not.
Without the traditional set of buttons, a joystick and for FPSers a mouse it's really a non-starter. Pressing virtual buttons on the screen will never be as satisfying or as technically accurate (a big deal for video games) as a physical button/stick/mouse. If you were to add the buttons, a mouse and/or a joystick the lovely touchscreen becomes a regular monitor and is ill suited to deal with the dedicated gaming rigs (laptop or desktop) and won't be much competition for the next gen gaming consoles, even more so when you consider these newer gaming consoles will be running 1080p on a 60" 3D screen. You may have some weekend gamers pick up a bubble buster game or two in lieu of reading a book or watching TV but hardcore gamers will never touch it.
The word "tablet" existed before Apple made the iPad, and it described what a tablet looks like eons before the iPad existed. Technology is becoming compact enough that a tablet computer is starting to look more like a tablet. And as far as prior ideas go... Ever see any science fiction movie ever? Maybe Apple can sue Moses for coming down from the mountain with his copyright/patent infringing tablets.
Citation needed
That would only work if you had the hashing function with the salt string. If you're talking about plain old brute force attack against the hashes, well that won't work without the hash function that has the salt string. You certainly can't do brute force attacks against a live port, someone would (god help us - hopefully) notice you. You would need a functioning copy of the hash function with the salt, the entire source code (where the salt is kept) for the site would need to be compromised not just he database.
Now it may well be that the entire source code + SHA1 Salt for the site was compromised. If that's the case, I stand corrected.
That simple passwords were revealed shows a lack of understanding or incompetence. The reason only "simple" passwords were revealed was from a poorly made SHA1 hashing function. Yes this is pure conjecture, but it is the only scenario that fits the facts.
The hackers acquired the database with the hashed passwords. Then the hackers ran the password hashes against a rainbow table which returned the matches for the simple passwords. Now the reason this is incompetence or ignorance is the simple inclusion of a half dozen or so special characters appended to the back of the password during the hash function would make these passwords unmatchable to all but the largest, slowest (super computer realm) rainbow tables. That's why the 'strong' passwords were not cracked.
To defeat all but the largest rainbow tables everyone uses this method is called SHA1+Salt, not my idea but a damn good one. Using salt in your SHA1 hash function prevents this sort of thing from happening. Imagine how many other accounts on other systems are now compromised!
Now there is a chance that the salt string was compromised also, but that's probably not likely because the salt is not (in my experience) is not stored in the database. Allowing SQL injection on a damn SQL site is bad enough, but could reasonably be a single bad coder, having such poor security protocols is incompetence on a grand scale.
I'm just glad the amateur hour over at MySql.com doesn't have my l/p.
There are two GPL licenses and they are both copyleft licenses. There is the ordinary and there is the lesser. The lesser GPL (LGPL from here on in) is used on software you want to allow people to recompile/include in their own closed source works they can then resell without the consent of the copyright holder.
On the other hand, the ordinary GPL states that you cannot include the work in closed source works, only other open source works. With both, if you attempt to branch the work, the new work will still be covered by the license used to create the original work.
So to sum it up:
LGPL -> can be used in new closed source products and resold. For example AForge, an imaging framework, uses a LGPL.
GPL -> can only be used in other GPL style licensed products. For example Quake3 source. You cannot use (compile) this in a closed source project.
The FSF wants you to use the GPL to force more people to write open source software. I'm all for that.
From gnu.org:
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#WhySomeGPLAndNotLGPL:
IMHO Apple is an enemy to open source software. They will drink from the open source font, but when it comes to opening their own software forget it. They hijack FreeBSD and turn it into an abomination of closed source commercialism, flying in the face of everything the copyleft license stands for. That's why instead of just switching their whole operation to open source ordinary GPL they scurry away and remove ordinary GPL software and scour the internet for other LGPL suckers they can suck the life out of to pad their own pockets.
Apple, stop it with the free ride, it took millions of man hours that you didn't pay for to build the software you so arrogantly call OSX. I love the prorogation of FOSS but I hate the way Apple treats everyone. Customers, fans, foes, they are all scum to Apple, to be used and discarded when they become a liability, Samba in this case, but there are many more. If Apple were any friend of open source they would not just use open source, they would be open source and license their software using the GPL.
The alien overlords designed their computer system to "just do what the user wants", once Jeff figured out the admin password, which ironically was "password" he had full control of the system, he called it a vrius so people would understand, but all he typed was del *.*. Incredible alien technology!