I could post with the same title, but my decrepit old computer is tasked with content acquisition. It polls an RSS feed periodically for new torrent files. When the download is complete, it is made available over HTTP on the LAN, so technically I stream content to whatever computer I happen to be sitting in front of. I can't speak for all content, but for what I want to watch, it's pretty reliable.
The automation is important for me. I have a crappy DSL connection, but as long as I don't end up staring at a progress meter, it doesn't stress me. (It's fine for web browsing -- even while the torrents are running.) Since I know the acquisition is going to happen, I don't worry about checking to see if something new is out yet. It will get here when it gets here. When I want to veg for a while, I just check my content listing page and see what I have lined up to watch.
My goal when I was setting up the system was to provide a more enjoyable service than Hulu. The target demographic is women who live with me. (Audience size is one.) I haven't seen my girlfriend check Hulu in months. I do see her commandeer my laptop and check my server for new stuff on a daily basis. It gives me warm fuzzies.
Oh, and since it seems to be the poll question, I've never paid for cable TV. It's just not in the budget.
I viewed the conversation on this topic mostly to see the revulsion at that series of words. There isn't enough. I would be pissed to see that statement anywhere, and probably mention something about fact-checking. It's on the front page of slashdot. There's no way timothy didn't look at it, recognize that it is a bald faced lie and that everyone here would know it, and endorse it anyway. What the hell?
FTP hasn't evolved. It's been replaced. As others have pointed out, there's https for the masses, and sftp for the ssh-inclined. There's bit torrent for efficiently distributing load. If you want to talk about history, great. If you want to claim that FTP is a good protocol today, I disagree. If you want to tell me that it's secure, you can just get fucked.
Exactly. They recommended Privoxy in the past, because it worked, but it didn't do any favors for performance. I used it then, and it was indeed terrible. Polipo is not designed with privacy concerns in mind, but focuses on performance. No, it's not going to magically make Tor un-slow, but it will make the most of a low throughput high latency network. I recently tried out Tor with Polipo, and it was impressively better. It could be that the Tor network has improved, but I'm crediting Polipo.
I read somewhere that the crux of the problem is that Privoxy will keep you waiting for little bits of content in a large page (possibly ads) while Polipo is more aggressive about giving you whatever it's gotten quickly. I don't know that this is the place, but this page mentions it: torproject blog
"We" is a large set. You're almost certainly right, as people are, generally, hypocrites. There are also certainly some people who would frown on this kind of activity but still not refer to it as theft.
The activities you're comparing are not the same, though. Without getting into which is worse, etc: When someone offers a song for download over the internet, the offer could generally be summed up as, "Here, this is [song name] by [band name]. Enjoy!" and not, "Here is a song I wrote last week. I call it Stairway to Heaven." Even if you don't believe information can be stolen, you might still say they stole credit.
That sounds like a big opportunity for a man in the middle to tell you your site doesn't support ssl. That's still fine against passive listeners, but wouldn't it make more sense to it like flashblock and noscript do? Force ssl by default, and if that doesn't work ask the user if he wants to go with plain http. That would at least give you the opportunity to say, "Gee, gmail usually has ssl..."
Yes. In the purest form of DDC, you would need to implement a compiler, an OS to host it, and possibly the hardware to run that OS, from scratch. The saving grace is that it doesn't have to be a very good compiler, or a very fun OS to use, or a very fast computer. As long as it generates correctly compiled code, you can use it to compile your good compiler.
Meanwhile, on your Dell running Red Hat, you compile your good compiler (we'll just say it's GCC) using your existing copy of GCC. Now you've got two second generation compilers. Their internal code should differ drastically, but their output should be identical.
Use each of them to compile GCC once again, and you should have two identical executable blobs.
In a less thorough version of the same exercise, you can just use two compilers that don't share a pedigree, and hence are unlikely to be infected with the same compiler-resident bug. Even in the strict form, however, you "only" have to generate a working compiler, not a highly optimized and highly optimizing compiler.
It's not like it could be a weekend project for me, but it also doesn't mean duplicating 20 years of development work. You still end up with GCC (or whatever), and you add the ability to trust your code at the price of developing a compiler.
Last I checked, there was a bit of code (something to do with rendering graphics, I think) that didn't want to compile as position-independent code. They fixed it so it could on 64 bit, but said it would take too many registers and thus hurt performance on x86 32 bit. I was pleased with performance before they made that change. While I'm happy about any improvement, since they made the change the whole program been incompatible with my (hardened) system.
I know it's kind of a long shot, but does anyone happen to know if Google has introduced a toggle for those of us who would like to compile with low-performance PIE, or of a third party patch to do this?
There's a lot of nitpicking about what is or is not technically a virus. The common use is to mean any piece of software that is malicious, but I assume you want something specifically benign. So, that leaves the question of what "type of virus" you want to emulate.
I saw someone mention demonstrating the autorun feature with a program that installs itself and sets autorun. This could give an opportunity to demonstrate how to delist such processes from the startup routine.
Do you want something that spreads? That could be thin ice, as well as being more difficult to do yourself, since it would need to take advantage of a vulnerability or misconfiguration.
You might find something they'll enjoy, like a game, and piggyback a do-nothing "trojan" with it. Give it to a kid you can count on to play it during class, as well as share it with his friends, and tell him not to play it during class. The payload of the trojan should execute during class a few days later. Maybe just pop up a dialogue every 30 seconds indicating the "infected" state, or maybe something with a little more pizazz,like setting a jolly roger desktop background. Then (after making a note of who ended up "infected") you can start the lesson on security, trusting executables, autorun, startup processes, etc.
The kids might (or might not) think you're cool because you wrote a virus, but as has been mentioned, higher ups might not. I would keep the phrase "It's not really a virus" on my lips the whole day.
Well, it's not always a matter of quality or performance. Being closed is considered by some to be a detriment in and of itself. How heavily this weighs varies, of course. I avoid it if I can.
If your friend was in a situation with cops that seemed that serious, and he was shouting and trying to pull something out of his pocket, your friend was being stupid.
Yeah, the police should have had their records straight. Yeah, they might have been too quick to use brute force. But at the point they're looking at what they think are a couple of car thieves who are being loud and appear to be trying to draw weapons, you can expect someone to get fucked up.
There are plenty of stories about abusive cops. That isn't one.
I'm not sure where you get sirens. If you mean the lights, I don't see those, either. Upon closer inspection, I do see the seal on the door of a car behind him, with another trooper getting out.
The motorcyclist looks back just before that on the ramp, and I can't see any lights or marked cars. Presumably he didn't either.
You raise a good point, though. It's muted right up until the end for some reason, and could obviously be cooked.
I saw another good point floating around: The cop only momentarily had his weapon out, when the bike was rolling back, and it probably looked like the guy was about to bolt. It still amounts to a few moments when the only information the guy appears to have is that there is a stranger yelling at him to get off his bike, and the stranger has a gun.
I saw the video. The cop is in an unmarked car and plain clothes. He pulls up past the motorcycle while it's stopped at an exit, veers in front of it, stops, and gets out with a gun drawn, saying, "Get off the motorcycle. Get off the motorcycle! Get off the motorcycle. State police."
So what if this guy had been exercising the second amendment, and happened to be an overconfident quick-draw artist, and got "lucky" enough to shoot first?
Right up until he says "State police," it doesn't look like a traffic stop to me. It looks like a crime in progress. Even then, pretty much anyone can say "police". He could at least flash a badge. The video did cut off right there, but that was more than enough time for something bad to happen.
I think the length of your answer demonstrates his point. I like gimp, and I've never even used photoshop, but it does seem to err on the side of being technically correct rather than intuitive.
It's one thing if your doctor tells you you have a somewhat uncommon infection with a lengthy name, and prescribes an expensive treatment, when you actually have a cold and just need rest.
It's another if he tells you your bill will be higher because he wouldn't use anything of lower quality than a ruby encrusted stethoscope and sterling silver one time use tongue depressors.
OK, yeah, if you're cool you'll clue in anyone about to do something stupid, but at some point you've pretty well got a right to laugh at them, too.
Actually, it sounds like he's living in my world. I have that conversation with my girlfriend about twice a week.
The scenario you lay out does have a happy ending. Within a week, the problem solves itself. Specifically, the current problem leaves you for Ronaldo. Then you just have to work out the more long term problem of how you ended up dating bitch-face to begin with, and how to avoid it in the future.
Is it possible that this statistic is just due to the fact that Google is a young company? My hypothesis here is that they've just done the most hiring where there are the most candidates, straight out of school. I don't know whether this is sufficient to explain the numbers, but it's not like they can focus on retaining employees that have been with the company for twenty years. Anyone old at Google was hired old.
More about the headline than the story, but it sounds like an execution announcement was made this way. I assume the order went through more traditional channels.
I read the summary because the headline sounded absurd. The summary basically said the headline is false. So the only reason I ended up on the conversation page of this one was to bitch.
I like slashdot, but I'd really like to see this sort of headline writing curbed. I mean, we have editors, right?
I know this has been said, but I think it bears repeating, as the bad behavior keeps being repeated.
I was about to mention I've set this as my default search gizmo in both chromium and firefox. In firefox, I just dredged up the the line "keyword.URL" in about:config, and inserted the 's'. In chromium you just right click on the address bar and choose to "edit search engines".
Many spanish people misunderstand what this tax is for and there is outrage among the ignorant that THEY(tm) tax you 'before' you commit THE CRIME(tm). Of course, it's not like that. This tax gives us what you americans and anyone everywhere has been doing since the beginning of time: lending privately.
If the the money is to offset the "cost" of private lending, and you have to pay it whether you do any such lending or not, it sounds like it's exactly like that.
It's a neat trick in countries where this is the case that paying a little completely screws up the recording industry's ability to threaten individuals with extreme punishment, but that doesn't change the ethics of the tax. You've just painted it up with positive language and said exactly the same thing: You're presumed guilty, and charged a nominal fee.
That's leaving out other issues such as who the money goes to, and whether there is any "guilt", or liability, to speak of.
Slashdot Mirror
Couldn't have said it better than Zencyde. Respect.
I could post with the same title, but my decrepit old computer is tasked with content acquisition. It polls an RSS feed periodically for new torrent files. When the download is complete, it is made available over HTTP on the LAN, so technically I stream content to whatever computer I happen to be sitting in front of. I can't speak for all content, but for what I want to watch, it's pretty reliable.
The automation is important for me. I have a crappy DSL connection, but as long as I don't end up staring at a progress meter, it doesn't stress me. (It's fine for web browsing -- even while the torrents are running.) Since I know the acquisition is going to happen, I don't worry about checking to see if something new is out yet. It will get here when it gets here. When I want to veg for a while, I just check my content listing page and see what I have lined up to watch.
My goal when I was setting up the system was to provide a more enjoyable service than Hulu. The target demographic is women who live with me. (Audience size is one.) I haven't seen my girlfriend check Hulu in months. I do see her commandeer my laptop and check my server for new stuff on a daily basis. It gives me warm fuzzies.
Oh, and since it seems to be the poll question, I've never paid for cable TV. It's just not in the budget.
FTP ... provides ... security ...
I viewed the conversation on this topic mostly to see the revulsion at that series of words. There isn't enough. I would be pissed to see that statement anywhere, and probably mention something about fact-checking. It's on the front page of slashdot. There's no way timothy didn't look at it, recognize that it is a bald faced lie and that everyone here would know it, and endorse it anyway. What the hell?
FTP hasn't evolved. It's been replaced. As others have pointed out, there's https for the masses, and sftp for the ssh-inclined. There's bit torrent for efficiently distributing load. If you want to talk about history, great. If you want to claim that FTP is a good protocol today, I disagree. If you want to tell me that it's secure, you can just get fucked.
Exactly. They recommended Privoxy in the past, because it worked, but it didn't do any favors for performance. I used it then, and it was indeed terrible. Polipo is not designed with privacy concerns in mind, but focuses on performance. No, it's not going to magically make Tor un-slow, but it will make the most of a low throughput high latency network. I recently tried out Tor with Polipo, and it was impressively better. It could be that the Tor network has improved, but I'm crediting Polipo.
I read somewhere that the crux of the problem is that Privoxy will keep you waiting for little bits of content in a large page (possibly ads) while Polipo is more aggressive about giving you whatever it's gotten quickly. I don't know that this is the place, but this page mentions it: torproject blog
"We" is a large set. You're almost certainly right, as people are, generally, hypocrites. There are also certainly some people who would frown on this kind of activity but still not refer to it as theft.
The activities you're comparing are not the same, though. Without getting into which is worse, etc: When someone offers a song for download over the internet, the offer could generally be summed up as, "Here, this is [song name] by [band name]. Enjoy!" and not, "Here is a song I wrote last week. I call it Stairway to Heaven." Even if you don't believe information can be stolen, you might still say they stole credit.
Who.
That sounds like a big opportunity for a man in the middle to tell you your site doesn't support ssl. That's still fine against passive listeners, but wouldn't it make more sense to it like flashblock and noscript do? Force ssl by default, and if that doesn't work ask the user if he wants to go with plain http. That would at least give you the opportunity to say, "Gee, gmail usually has ssl ..."
Yes. In the purest form of DDC, you would need to implement a compiler, an OS to host it, and possibly the hardware to run that OS, from scratch. The saving grace is that it doesn't have to be a very good compiler, or a very fun OS to use, or a very fast computer. As long as it generates correctly compiled code, you can use it to compile your good compiler.
Meanwhile, on your Dell running Red Hat, you compile your good compiler (we'll just say it's GCC) using your existing copy of GCC. Now you've got two second generation compilers. Their internal code should differ drastically, but their output should be identical.
Use each of them to compile GCC once again, and you should have two identical executable blobs.
In a less thorough version of the same exercise, you can just use two compilers that don't share a pedigree, and hence are unlikely to be infected with the same compiler-resident bug. Even in the strict form, however, you "only" have to generate a working compiler, not a highly optimized and highly optimizing compiler.
It's not like it could be a weekend project for me, but it also doesn't mean duplicating 20 years of development work. You still end up with GCC (or whatever), and you add the ability to trust your code at the price of developing a compiler.
Last I checked, there was a bit of code (something to do with rendering graphics, I think) that didn't want to compile as position-independent code. They fixed it so it could on 64 bit, but said it would take too many registers and thus hurt performance on x86 32 bit. I was pleased with performance before they made that change. While I'm happy about any improvement, since they made the change the whole program been incompatible with my (hardened) system.
I know it's kind of a long shot, but does anyone happen to know if Google has introduced a toggle for those of us who would like to compile with low-performance PIE, or of a third party patch to do this?
There's a lot of nitpicking about what is or is not technically a virus. The common use is to mean any piece of software that is malicious, but I assume you want something specifically benign. So, that leaves the question of what "type of virus" you want to emulate.
I saw someone mention demonstrating the autorun feature with a program that installs itself and sets autorun. This could give an opportunity to demonstrate how to delist such processes from the startup routine.
Do you want something that spreads? That could be thin ice, as well as being more difficult to do yourself, since it would need to take advantage of a vulnerability or misconfiguration.
You might find something they'll enjoy, like a game, and piggyback a do-nothing "trojan" with it. Give it to a kid you can count on to play it during class, as well as share it with his friends, and tell him not to play it during class. The payload of the trojan should execute during class a few days later. Maybe just pop up a dialogue every 30 seconds indicating the "infected" state, or maybe something with a little more pizazz,like setting a jolly roger desktop background. Then (after making a note of who ended up "infected") you can start the lesson on security, trusting executables, autorun, startup processes, etc.
The kids might (or might not) think you're cool because you wrote a virus, but as has been mentioned, higher ups might not. I would keep the phrase "It's not really a virus" on my lips the whole day.
Well, it's not always a matter of quality or performance. Being closed is considered by some to be a detriment in and of itself. How heavily this weighs varies, of course. I avoid it if I can.
If your friend was in a situation with cops that seemed that serious, and he was shouting and trying to pull something out of his pocket, your friend was being stupid.
Yeah, the police should have had their records straight. Yeah, they might have been too quick to use brute force. But at the point they're looking at what they think are a couple of car thieves who are being loud and appear to be trying to draw weapons, you can expect someone to get fucked up.
There are plenty of stories about abusive cops. That isn't one.
I'm not sure where you get sirens. If you mean the lights, I don't see those, either. Upon closer inspection, I do see the seal on the door of a car behind him, with another trooper getting out.
The motorcyclist looks back just before that on the ramp, and I can't see any lights or marked cars. Presumably he didn't either.
You raise a good point, though. It's muted right up until the end for some reason, and could obviously be cooked.
I saw another good point floating around: The cop only momentarily had his weapon out, when the bike was rolling back, and it probably looked like the guy was about to bolt. It still amounts to a few moments when the only information the guy appears to have is that there is a stranger yelling at him to get off his bike, and the stranger has a gun.
I saw the video. The cop is in an unmarked car and plain clothes. He pulls up past the motorcycle while it's stopped at an exit, veers in front of it, stops, and gets out with a gun drawn, saying, "Get off the motorcycle. Get off the motorcycle! Get off the motorcycle. State police."
So what if this guy had been exercising the second amendment, and happened to be an overconfident quick-draw artist, and got "lucky" enough to shoot first?
Right up until he says "State police," it doesn't look like a traffic stop to me. It looks like a crime in progress. Even then, pretty much anyone can say "police". He could at least flash a badge. The video did cut off right there, but that was more than enough time for something bad to happen.
Yes, I'm sure he'll see reason, now.
I think you're right (possibly excepting the exact definition of "fascism"), but damn.
I think the length of your answer demonstrates his point. I like gimp, and I've never even used photoshop, but it does seem to err on the side of being technically correct rather than intuitive.
It's one thing if your doctor tells you you have a somewhat uncommon infection with a lengthy name, and prescribes an expensive treatment, when you actually have a cold and just need rest.
It's another if he tells you your bill will be higher because he wouldn't use anything of lower quality than a ruby encrusted stethoscope and sterling silver one time use tongue depressors.
OK, yeah, if you're cool you'll clue in anyone about to do something stupid, but at some point you've pretty well got a right to laugh at them, too.
Looks like I should have just modded you up and saved my breath. Well put.
Actually, it sounds like he's living in my world. I have that conversation with my girlfriend about twice a week.
The scenario you lay out does have a happy ending. Within a week, the problem solves itself. Specifically, the current problem leaves you for Ronaldo. Then you just have to work out the more long term problem of how you ended up dating bitch-face to begin with, and how to avoid it in the future.
Is it possible that this statistic is just due to the fact that Google is a young company? My hypothesis here is that they've just done the most hiring where there are the most candidates, straight out of school. I don't know whether this is sufficient to explain the numbers, but it's not like they can focus on retaining employees that have been with the company for twenty years. Anyone old at Google was hired old.
This is all fine and good...
Um ... no. But I like what you said after that.
For those too lazy to click a couple of links:
magnet
More about the headline than the story, but it sounds like an execution announcement was made this way. I assume the order went through more traditional channels.
I read the summary because the headline sounded absurd. The summary basically said the headline is false. So the only reason I ended up on the conversation page of this one was to bitch.
I like slashdot, but I'd really like to see this sort of headline writing curbed. I mean, we have editors, right?
I know this has been said, but I think it bears repeating, as the bad behavior keeps being repeated.
I was about to mention I've set this as my default search gizmo in both chromium and firefox. In firefox, I just dredged up the the line "keyword.URL" in about:config, and inserted the 's'. In chromium you just right click on the address bar and choose to "edit search engines".
Many spanish people misunderstand what this tax is for and there is outrage among the ignorant that THEY(tm) tax you 'before' you commit THE CRIME(tm). Of course, it's not like that. This tax gives us what you americans and anyone everywhere has been doing since the beginning of time: lending privately.
If the the money is to offset the "cost" of private lending, and you have to pay it whether you do any such lending or not, it sounds like it's exactly like that.
It's a neat trick in countries where this is the case that paying a little completely screws up the recording industry's ability to threaten individuals with extreme punishment, but that doesn't change the ethics of the tax. You've just painted it up with positive language and said exactly the same thing: You're presumed guilty, and charged a nominal fee.
That's leaving out other issues such as who the money goes to, and whether there is any "guilt", or liability, to speak of.