You can use uTorrent in Linux, it was designed to be very Wine friendly. I myself found it to be more reliable than Azureus, my old client.
Besides, I thought certain trackers didn't allow in various clients, due to past problems. I can't recall if BitTornado was one of the commonly accepted ones or not though.
True, but this low hanging fruit is particularly begging to get squished.
Jokes aside, there is a reason we're taking a shot at this. Marketing and Advertising are nothing new, neither are these quizzes/sites. There are literally thousands of these things floating around on the internet, abandoned by the marketing departments that spawned them. But what makes this one unique is how the majority of the answers are either blatant lies, or... well they're all lies to be honest.
Besides, we've only had serious articles recently, who doesn't mind some humor? And Slashdot never misses a chance to MS-Bash as it turns out.
Any politician that promises to "Lead" is likely to take us off where he thinks is best. Even if it's against the will of the people, because "Clearly they don't know what's best for them." Unfortunately, this basically describes all of them these days.
What is the point where, the actions the Government takes to stop crime, becomes more of an issue than the crimes itself? Which would you rather risk, the malicious intentions of a few extremely aggressive and moderately armed/equipped criminals, or the malicious intentions of many moderately aggressive and lavishly equipped "Public Servants?"
How the heck do you fit an accurate iris scanner into the viewfinder of a camera? Most DSLR viewfinders are pretty tiny, and packed full of, you know, actually important stuff. And most point and shoots I've seen recently have absolutely horrible viewfinders (heck, I've read of a few manufacturers omitting them ).
Actually watermark the image. You know, actually modify the image with text, your name, company, firm, whatever. So you can easily view the image, but it prominently displays who it belongs to. When you actually sell it, give them the un-watermarked version.
Now that I think about it, that's a good point. There are ways to hide watermarks, and make them difficult to find/remove, but they tend to degrade signal/noise ratios (not good for a camera, at least of professional quality. Most pocket cameras I know have plenty of noise to hide the watermark in), and it'd be a fairly CPU intensive process inserting it. So, you have a point there.
As said above: Turn it off, or don't buy that camera. I'm not particularly sold on it myself, so I won't buy it (that and I shoot Nikon, and I've already invested in lenses).
It's neat, but I'm not sold.
The real issue with it all, is not proving that it's your photograph. RAW files, EXIF data, and having a whole sequence of photographs instead of one, can help prove that a photograph actually belongs to you. The issue more often than not is commercial photographers not going after those that infringe upon their copyrights.
I know it sounds draconian, but that's life. I love my Creative Commons as much as the next *nix user, but if you're trying to make your living off of it, you can't hand it away.
If you want the images watermarked with your iris, you have to verify it's you (as in, put your eye to the viewfinder). Apparently the watermarking can be done later in bulk, to avoid slowing down the camera's performance in the field.
I agree that's FUD. I'd argue more that in this case, the ECMA appears more like a rubber stamp, but I honestly don't know about more of their dealings to call it that.
They actually hold multiple patents (18 currently held, or pending) that apply to OOXML.
My worst fear however, is that they'll maintain the format, and change it continually, not warning anyone when they're going to make a unilateral move. Leaving everyone else who wants to read documents sent to them in that format in the dark.
See above. The current implementation of OOXML doesn't comply with the proposed standards. And how would you feel if once OOXML got passed as an ISO standard, MS sued our precious Open Office, to ensure the dominance of MS Office? So much for open.
There's a lot of concern that Microsoft will do a couple things:
1) Make the standard so convoluted, that only they really understand how to implement it, or at least how to implement it well. IE, it being based around how they designed MS Word, not around making it easy to implement.
2) They want to maintain the standard. So, they could decide to add some "Features" but not tell anyone until say, MS Office 2009 is released, leaving anyone else who wants to use this "Open" standard far behind, struggling to catch up.
But they only made the wires out of sugar, and various other water soluble compounds. While they said they could make wires out of ingredients that dissolve in volatile organic compounds, when will they be able to make them out of metal?
Or, do like a lot of people, and have a dual boot setup. I run Linux the vast majority of the time (over 98%), but for that 2% of the time I need something that I can't run in Wine, I have a small XP install to use.
IIRC, Paypal and Google both use commodity PCs in clusters like this. Google uses something similar to above (duh), and Paypal uses a 3 tiered, multi-PC setup (Database, caching layer, and application side layers, respectively).
Some of the most brilliant hacks are for recognition among hackers, not just money. More often than not, the real money makers are the dumb assaults, phishing, domain squatting, social engineering, etc.
Slashdot Mirror
You can use uTorrent in Linux, it was designed to be very Wine friendly. I myself found it to be more reliable than Azureus, my old client.
Besides, I thought certain trackers didn't allow in various clients, due to past problems. I can't recall if BitTornado was one of the commonly accepted ones or not though.
True, but this low hanging fruit is particularly begging to get squished.
... well they're all lies to be honest.
Jokes aside, there is a reason we're taking a shot at this. Marketing and Advertising are nothing new, neither are these quizzes/sites. There are literally thousands of these things floating around on the internet, abandoned by the marketing departments that spawned them. But what makes this one unique is how the majority of the answers are either blatant lies, or
Besides, we've only had serious articles recently, who doesn't mind some humor? And Slashdot never misses a chance to MS-Bash as it turns out.
Any politician that promises to "Lead" is likely to take us off where he thinks is best. Even if it's against the will of the people, because "Clearly they don't know what's best for them." Unfortunately, this basically describes all of them these days.
What is the point where, the actions the Government takes to stop crime, becomes more of an issue than the crimes itself? Which would you rather risk, the malicious intentions of a few extremely aggressive and moderately armed/equipped criminals, or the malicious intentions of many moderately aggressive and lavishly equipped "Public Servants?"
Like a Constitution that Lawmakers ignore?!? Say it ain't so!
Looks like an investment in this, another hard drive, and DRM breaking technology is in order!
All 4 major labels are involved, why didn't they include the part about getting sued?
How the heck do you fit an accurate iris scanner into the viewfinder of a camera? Most DSLR viewfinders are pretty tiny, and packed full of, you know, actually important stuff. And most point and shoots I've seen recently have absolutely horrible viewfinders (heck, I've read of a few manufacturers omitting them ).
Where the heck will they fit it all?
Actually watermark the image. You know, actually modify the image with text, your name, company, firm, whatever. So you can easily view the image, but it prominently displays who it belongs to. When you actually sell it, give them the un-watermarked version.
Now that I think about it, that's a good point. There are ways to hide watermarks, and make them difficult to find/remove, but they tend to degrade signal/noise ratios (not good for a camera, at least of professional quality. Most pocket cameras I know have plenty of noise to hide the watermark in), and it'd be a fairly CPU intensive process inserting it. So, you have a point there.
As said above: Turn it off, or don't buy that camera. I'm not particularly sold on it myself, so I won't buy it (that and I shoot Nikon, and I've already invested in lenses).
It's neat, but I'm not sold. The real issue with it all, is not proving that it's your photograph. RAW files, EXIF data, and having a whole sequence of photographs instead of one, can help prove that a photograph actually belongs to you. The issue more often than not is commercial photographers not going after those that infringe upon their copyrights. I know it sounds draconian, but that's life. I love my Creative Commons as much as the next *nix user, but if you're trying to make your living off of it, you can't hand it away.
If you want the images watermarked with your iris, you have to verify it's you (as in, put your eye to the viewfinder). Apparently the watermarking can be done later in bulk, to avoid slowing down the camera's performance in the field.
Picky picky picky. You got the meaning, didn't you? Not punctuating that is hardly the most atrocious of grammatical errors I've seen here.
I agree that's FUD. I'd argue more that in this case, the ECMA appears more like a rubber stamp, but I honestly don't know about more of their dealings to call it that.
They actually hold multiple patents (18 currently held, or pending) that apply to OOXML. My worst fear however, is that they'll maintain the format, and change it continually, not warning anyone when they're going to make a unilateral move. Leaving everyone else who wants to read documents sent to them in that format in the dark.
See above. The current implementation of OOXML doesn't comply with the proposed standards. And how would you feel if once OOXML got passed as an ISO standard, MS sued our precious Open Office, to ensure the dominance of MS Office? So much for open.
There's a lot of concern that Microsoft will do a couple things: 1) Make the standard so convoluted, that only they really understand how to implement it, or at least how to implement it well. IE, it being based around how they designed MS Word, not around making it easy to implement. 2) They want to maintain the standard. So, they could decide to add some "Features" but not tell anyone until say, MS Office 2009 is released, leaving anyone else who wants to use this "Open" standard far behind, struggling to catch up.
But they only made the wires out of sugar, and various other water soluble compounds. While they said they could make wires out of ingredients that dissolve in volatile organic compounds, when will they be able to make them out of metal?
If that logic were applied, everything would be a charity. Then again, that would be nice if everything were done for free.
Or, do like a lot of people, and have a dual boot setup. I run Linux the vast majority of the time (over 98%), but for that 2% of the time I need something that I can't run in Wine, I have a small XP install to use.
Your options will always be extremely limited if you restrict yourself to only one OS.
IIRC, Paypal and Google both use commodity PCs in clusters like this. Google uses something similar to above (duh), and Paypal uses a 3 tiered, multi-PC setup (Database, caching layer, and application side layers, respectively).
Some of the most brilliant hacks are for recognition among hackers, not just money. More often than not, the real money makers are the dumb assaults, phishing, domain squatting, social engineering, etc.