"You may permit a maximum of ten (10) computers or other electronic devices (each a "Device") to connect to the Workstation Computer to utilize the services..."
So, you are only allowed 10 machines on your network which have the ability to talk to XP? Thats just as silly as only being able to run it on a single CPU machine.
TightVNC is actually very usable over a 56k modem (which only conects at 33.6 because of BT's DACS crap). This has nothing to do with telephony tho, as the compression techniques used in vnctight probably wont be too good for voice:), but if the other things like data sharing are done in a normal VNC kinda way then the tight encoding could be useful..
How long until people drive around wearing stuff like this so they can breathe through their windows/sunroof in those times when they really need to use their car.
I am a linux user now, by choice, and I hate it when I need to use most microsoft products. But, without microsoft being so good at convincing people that they needed to upgrade to this that and the other how would things be now? Most people here run their free (as in..blah.blah) OS on an x86 machine, without microsoft this architecture would have probably not been around today. I was just trying to think of a reason why that is good, but I couldn't. At least that microsoft dream of having PC's on every desktop thing means that, indirectly, there should be more people to work on those fun projects people come up with..
But it isnt their fault that there is a problem with the Cisco ADSL modem and that Microsofts web server software had the security hole in the first place. If anyone other than the virus writer(s) should be blamed then it should be Cisco and Microsoft before Qwest.
Actually, @home users can still infect anyone else anywhere if only incoming port 80 connections are blocked. I dont know how codeRed decides who to do next, but from looking at my logs it isn't just "attacks" from people on the local network (as I am getting connections from USA, France, China...). To completely stop the spread of the worm over the @home network incoming and outgoing port 80 connections would need to be blocked.
One good thing about jabber is that compatibility and "upgrades" for different IM systems can be implemented without the user needing to install a new version of the client software, it is all done on the server. So, if for some reason someone decided to come up with a new IM system (very unlikely:) ot just, stupid...) then the actualy user of that system would not need to install any new software, only add that agent in their jabber client.
Spread it to the windows world too?
The "official" jabber client (official meaning the one by the people at jabber.com is released for windows only. Actually, the only reason I prefer Gabber is that it looks prettier (IMO), but I wouldn't count that as a usability issue:)
Oh, ok. It gets addresses from that Temporary internet files place too, which I guess has cached webpages in it. That would explain the random mails (even though I put.[AT]. instead of @ on any web-accessible stuff..)
I should have read the wired article too before posting:)
I dont believe that the virus spreads by getting addresses from the address book, I have recieved 3 emails with random attachments to far and they are all from addresses I have never seen before and can't think of any reason why I would be in their address book.
A friend of mine has also gotten one of these emails, and has no idea who the (apparent) sender is. Is this the same virus that I am thinking of? the one with the "Hi, I would like your opinion on this" kind of main text (I cant remember what it really is, but it's the same every time)
I was thinking the same thing, but more like just taking a screenshot and saving it out as a png or something. If its on the display it can be grabbed by a program which that browser plugin (or whatever) cant control..
It would take a bit more than just an email..anyone could send an email saying "My band metallica have written this song....", that all has to be checked to make sure that the person who sent the email is the real owner, or has permission to share it.
Maybe some web based system that allows users, who can be reached some how, to login and authorize songs would work though. At least then the blame could be shifted to someone else:)
> But removing the songs has proved exceptionally difficult, since Napster users
> constantly make them reappear under different file names. Napster has said it
> cannot keep up with every variation.
Maybe napster could only allow files to be shared which the owners have allowed to be shared, instead of trying to work out what files should not be shared.
This would mean that people need to share mp3s with names which are expected (or close enough), and would probably require quite a bit of work before allowing a share (to check copyright stuff..), but it might be easier than the other option of banning the names of every variation.
This wouldn't stop people sharing copyrighted material using the name of something which is "allowed", but if songs were being shared with completely different names to what they really were then that would make the search pretty pointless
Now they just need to find a way of protecting the electronics so that all that unused space can be filled with water and you can have fish living in your pc..
I was just talking about the TV license thing with friend today. As if it didnt seem stupid enough to have a license for a TV.. people who are blind get about 10% off their license and people with black an white TVs get about 70% off. I dont remember the exact values, but thats _almost_ right afaik.
> The communications of UK citizens can now be
> trawled by GCHQ to investigate any "large number
> of persons in pursuit of a common purpose"
I wonder if they got bored yet of reading the email thats been going round over here (in the UK) telling people to put their religeon down as Jedi on the census.
(i know the link is about NZ, but its the same thing - except we cant be fined for incorrectly answering the question about religeon as it says so on the form)
Not all software needs to be installed as root, you could do something like add certain users to a group which has write access to/usr/local. That still wouldnt stop install scripts being able to run a bindshell-type of program though.
> The answer is that Microsoft are saying that they'll limit the quality of recordings made using the built in software,
> not those made on Windows XP. Use something else to encode / your mp3s, and you're fine.
Dont start giving people ideas like that, otherwise microsoft might start trying to find a way to make it illegal for anyone except a "qualified microsoft engineer" to install software on any machine running windows.
I have been writing a game using SDL (with opengl) for the last month or two. As it as been growing, we havent seen any noticeable performance problems with using SDL (infact, the only problems have been with bad coding on our part sometimes - oops).
What I was most impressed with was how easy it was to get something originally designed to run in sparc-solaris to work in win32 just by cross compiling and following a few simple instructions from this page - at least a month into the actual coding of the thing.
Slashdot Mirror
"You may permit a maximum of ten (10) computers or other electronic devices (each a "Device") to connect to the Workstation Computer to utilize the services..."
So, you are only allowed 10 machines on your network which have the ability to talk to XP? Thats just as silly as only being able to run it on a single CPU machine.
TightVNC is actually very usable over a 56k modem (which only conects at 33.6 because of BT's DACS crap). This has nothing to do with telephony tho, as the compression techniques used in vnctight probably wont be too good for voice :), but if the other things like data sharing are done in a normal VNC kinda way then the tight encoding could be useful..
48cm?! How am I going to get it to reach the stuff at the top of the fridge? Does it come with go-go-gadget legs/arms?
How long until people drive around wearing stuff like this so they can breathe through their windows/sunroof in those times when they really need to use their car.
I am a linux user now, by choice, and I hate it when I need to use most microsoft products. But, without microsoft being so good at convincing people that they needed to upgrade to this that and the other how would things be now? Most people here run their free (as in..blah.blah) OS on an x86 machine, without microsoft this architecture would have probably not been around today. I was just trying to think of a reason why that is good, but I couldn't. At least that microsoft dream of having PC's on every desktop thing means that, indirectly, there should be more people to work on those fun projects people come up with..
-sorry, i'm drunk and decided to post.
But it isnt their fault that there is a problem with the Cisco ADSL modem and that Microsofts web server software had the security hole in the first place. If anyone other than the virus writer(s) should be blamed then it should be Cisco and Microsoft before Qwest.
Actually, @home users can still infect anyone else anywhere if only incoming port 80 connections are blocked. I dont know how codeRed decides who to do next, but from looking at my logs it isn't just "attacks" from people on the local network (as I am getting connections from USA, France, China...). To completely stop the spread of the worm over the @home network incoming and outgoing port 80 connections would need to be blocked.
One good thing about jabber is that compatibility and "upgrades" for different IM systems can be implemented without the user needing to install a new version of the client software, it is all done on the server. So, if for some reason someone decided to come up with a new IM system (very unlikely :) ot just, stupid...) then the actualy user of that system would not need to install any new software, only add that agent in their jabber client.
Spread it to the windows world too? :)
The "official" jabber client (official meaning the one by the people at jabber.com is released for windows only. Actually, the only reason I prefer Gabber is that it looks prettier (IMO), but I wouldn't count that as a usability issue
Oh, ok. It gets addresses from that Temporary internet files place too, which I guess has cached webpages in it. That would explain the random mails (even though I put .[AT]. instead of @ on any web-accessible stuff..) :)
I should have read the wired article too before posting
I dont believe that the virus spreads by getting addresses from the address book, I have recieved 3 emails with random attachments to far and they are all from addresses I have never seen before and can't think of any reason why I would be in their address book.
A friend of mine has also gotten one of these emails, and has no idea who the (apparent) sender is. Is this the same virus that I am thinking of? the one with the "Hi, I would like your opinion on this" kind of main text (I cant remember what it really is, but it's the same every time)
why is the version without the "companion book" more expensive than the one without? Or is that just a misuse of the word respectively?
If they're only transmitting information out, this should be fine (except for maybe privacy concerns, that is)
Data transmission? You mean like what mobile phones do. Just think how many people would be against that claiming that it causes cancer..
I was thinking the same thing, but more like just taking a screenshot and saving it out as a png or something. If its on the display it can be grabbed by a program which that browser plugin (or whatever) cant control..
It would take a bit more than just an email..anyone could send an email saying "My band metallica have written this song....", that all has to be checked to make sure that the person who sent the email is the real owner, or has permission to share it. :)
Maybe some web based system that allows users, who can be reached some how, to login and authorize songs would work though. At least then the blame could be shifted to someone else
> But removing the songs has proved exceptionally difficult, since Napster users
> constantly make them reappear under different file names. Napster has said it
> cannot keep up with every variation.
Maybe napster could only allow files to be shared which the owners have allowed to be shared, instead of trying to work out what files should not be shared.
This would mean that people need to share mp3s with names which are expected (or close enough), and would probably require quite a bit of work before allowing a share (to check copyright stuff..), but it might be easier than the other option of banning the names of every variation.
This wouldn't stop people sharing copyrighted material using the name of something which is "allowed", but if songs were being shared with completely different names to what they really were then that would make the search pretty pointless
Now they just need to find a way of protecting the electronics so that all that unused space can be filled with water and you can have fish living in your pc..
I was just talking about the TV license thing with friend today. As if it didnt seem stupid enough to have a license for a TV.. people who are blind get about 10% off their license and people with black an white TVs get about 70% off. I dont remember the exact values, but thats _almost_ right afaik.
> The communications of UK citizens can now be
> trawled by GCHQ to investigate any "large number
> of persons in pursuit of a common purpose"
I wonder if they got bored yet of reading the email thats been going round over here (in the UK) telling people to put their religeon down as Jedi on the census.
(i know the link is about NZ, but its the same thing - except we cant be fined for incorrectly answering the question about religeon as it says so on the form)
Not all software needs to be installed as root, you could do something like add certain users to a group which has write access to /usr/local. That still wouldnt stop install scripts being able to run a bindshell-type of program though.
> The answer is that Microsoft are saying that they'll limit the quality of recordings made using the built in software,
> not those made on Windows XP. Use something else to encode / your mp3s, and you're fine.
Dont start giving people ideas like that, otherwise microsoft might start trying to find a way to make it illegal for anyone except a "qualified microsoft engineer" to install software on any machine running windows.
I have been writing a game using SDL (with opengl) for the last month or two. As it as been growing, we havent seen any noticeable performance problems with using SDL (infact, the only problems have been with bad coding on our part sometimes - oops). What I was most impressed with was how easy it was to get something originally designed to run in sparc-solaris to work in win32 just by cross compiling and following a few simple instructions from this page - at least a month into the actual coding of the thing.