Note also that a lot of clients have safeguards to prevent this sort of thing. The one I've used before (BearShare) defaults to not return matches on *.exe files, *.vbs files, and other executables.
Also, I believe it (or at least some) will refuse to talk to other Gnutella users that always return matches. A simple thing to implement, really--just do have the client do an automatic search with a random string and exclude all clients that return 'nsdkjfnlnponf' as matching some file.
Dlugar
Re:This Editorial Was Actually A Response ...
on
The Modem Lives On
·
· Score: 1
In my CS class in college this happened. My CS Professor promised anyone an A who could write an iterative merge-sort algorithm before the next class (24 hours), thinking for some reason it was impossible. I had already been thinking on it, and I and two other students implemented it.
He retracted his offer on the class newsgroup, but told us three to stay after class to talk to him. We figured we'd get a bit of extra credit or something.
He said, "Now did I promise an A on a particular assignment, or did I say an A for the whole course?" We had been sure to extract a promise for the latter from him, and we informed him as such. He replied, "Well, I guess I've got to keep my word. You three get an A in the course."
I attended class, made As on the tests, but didn't do any of the rest of the work and failed the class. But true to his word, my instructor gave me an A for the course. I was very impressed, and the story circulated around the school.
So I suppose not every teacher is a lying kook trying to rip you off.
I've had this happen lots of times to me while sitting in Linux, but I've never seen a GUI file manager as being the solution.
For a huge honkin' list of mp3s, I'd open up something like FreeAmp if I wanted to double-click on them to hear the first few seconds. (Generally speaking, this isn't what I spend most of my time doing. I'd rather run mpg123 with a large random playlist in a different console.)
If I've got a bazillion different images, I'd open electric eyes or something similar with a thumbnail browser.
But never have I had the need for a basic GUI file manager. Now, if you're talking about specialized filelists inside of GUI programs, those can be helpful quite often. But I don't want an unhelpful generalized version of that.
And 90% of the time tabbing around in the command line is faster than even those specialized GUI programs.
I have two different versions of the song. (Did they play it twice or do I have two different recordings of the same concert?) A several many of the words are completely unintelligible. Does anyone (TMBG included) have the lyrics anywhere?
Who sang "I Might Be Giant, Too", one of your Dial-a-Song songs? It's one of my favourites, but I've heard it attributed to various people. And what are the lyrics for it? I've looked everywhere!
Where do you see copyright moving in the future? It seems to me that we have either two choices: we can get rid of it altogether or else this world will become a place devoid of Public Domain, full of Dongles and complicated copyright "phone-home" tactics (cf. Road to Tycho). Are creative artists going to have to go back to "patronage of the arts" and working on retainer to be able to live off their creative works? Is this worse or better than the current system, and why?
Do you think it's moral to use second-hand copywritten information if it (a) is not used for commercial or profit, and (b) does not effect the potential market value of said work?
I didn't mean the majority of the nation in raw acreage. Take a look at the number of states won by each candidate: 19 by Gore, 29 by Bush.
I'm not saying that each state should have an equal amount of votes. But those two votes allotted to each state regardless of population do have a very important effect. I, personally, wouldn't want to elect a president who has the support of, say, only New England. A president should have the support of the majority of the states.
Every other office in this country doesn't use the electoral college because there's no other office that is elected by the entirety of the populace. That's how it was meant to be. A 'true' democracy doesn't work. Take a look at the history books.
Point to ponder: do you think any president would pay attention to, for instance, the black population if there were no electoral college? They are a very small minority when taking the nation as a whole, but if you ignore them you likely lose support from many Southern states.
The Electoral College isn't a formality or a left-over of past years. It's a left-over of when we were a Republic and when the rights of the State were more than the rights of the Federal government. I don't think the people in this nation are homogenous enough to warrant the removal of the latter, and I don't think that a true democracy is more effective than an elected republic. Your opinions may differ.
(I know this is way down at the bottom, so not likely many will read it, but I'm still interested in people's opinions. Let me know what you think.)
My Ideas for United States General Election Reform:
Keep the Electoral College
The electoral college needs to stay. A president should be elected because he receives the support of the majority of the states, not the majority of the people in the nation. Small states and minorities would lose out considerably if the electoral college were completely abolished.
Alleged problems with the Electoral College:
Myth 1. The American people do not really elect the president
The American people, of course, still elect the president, but not directly. They never have. This is not a problem, and never has been. Some people like to point at elections in which the president has lost the popular vote, but won the office because of the Electoral College. A good example of this is George W. Bush in the 2000 election. If one were to look at a map of the United States, one would see that Bush won the support of the majority of the nation, while Gore won several pockets of large population. If the Electoral College were abolished, candidates could campaign only in these pockets of people, and win the office of the presidency even though the majority of states supported a different candidate.
Nobody argues that in a basketball tournament, the winner should be the team who scores the most total baskets combined from every game. The baskets have to be arranged to win games, just as the votes in a General Election have to be arranged to win states. However, I suggest to:
Split Votes to Congressional Districts
The electoral votes allotted to each State corresponds with the number of Representatives and Senators each State has in Congress. Instead of the majority winner in a particular state receiving the entirety of that state's electoral votes, have one electoral vote per Congressional district and two for the state majority.
Myth 2. Your vote counts for more if you're from a larger state
The number of electors a state received is directly proportional to the population of the state. Assuming that a state has 100% voter turnout, every vote counts as an identical percent of an elector. In fact, it is the smaller states whose vote counts for more, because each state has the two electors corresponding to Senators regardless of size. The problem ensues when one state has a high voter turnout, while another has a very low voter turnout. In the latter case, one's vote is worth quite a bit more. Therefore I propose that the number of electors be:
Representative of Voters, not Population
Using the national census, calculate the population of the United States and divide by 435 (the number of members in the House of Representatives). This will result in the number of people per congressional district. However, instead of counting basic population, count the number of people who voted in the previous general election. Then organize the congressional districts based on this information. This way, votes from states with large populations but with very low voter turn-out don't count for more than votes from states with higher voter turn-out.
Myth 3. Faithless electors can swing votes
A much-touted problem with the Electoral College, the fact that electors can change their vote at the last minute has never been a problem. In the very few times it has happened in this nation's history, not once has it even come close to changing the results of an election. In addition, the electors are generally chosen from the prominent members of the political party for whom your vote is case. That is to say, if you vote for a Republican president, you are in actuality voting for the Republican elector who has been chosen by party leaders. If your vote is cast for a Democratic president, you are electing the elector whom the Democrat party has chosen. There is very little chance that such a person would choose to go against the wishes of his party without good reason.
A bigger problem is that a president might be elected without gaining support of the majority of the nation, especially if the votes are divided among three or four parties. A form of run-off voting, such as Instant Runoff Voting or Instant Pair Runoff Voting (Condorcet), would solve this problem.
Use Instant Runoff or Condorcet (Instant Pair Runoff) Voting
Instant Runoff Voting allows voters to rank candidates as their first choice, second choice, third, fourth, and so on. If a candidate does not receive clear majority of votes on the first count, a series of runoff counts are conducted, using each voter's top choices indicated on the ballot. The candidate who received the fewest first place ballots is eliminated. The ballots are then retabulated, with each counting as a vote for the top-ranked candidate listed on the ballot that is still in contention. Voters who chose the now-eliminated candidate have their votes transferred to their second choice candidate--just as if they were voting in a traditional two-round runoff election. This process continues until a candidate achieves more than fifty percent of the vote. However, this still encourages people not to "vote their conscience." A more effective system is the Condorcet, or "Instant Pair Runoff Voting" method.
In the Condorcet election method, voters rank the candidates in order of preference. The vote counting procedure then takes into account each preference of each voter for one candidate over another. It does so by conceptually breaking the election down into a series of separate races between each possible pairing of candidates, hence it is sometimes referred to as a "pairwise" method. If one of the candidates beats each of the other candidates in their one-on-one race, then that candidate wins. Otherwise, the result is ambiguous and an optimal procedure is used to resolve the ambiguity. Unlike our current plurality election method, the Condorcet system gives voters little incentive to falsify their true preferences.
On the contrary! I think the only way for this to work is for ICANN to stay out of it. Rigidly enforcing content in various areas is only asking for trouble. Make.kids and.xxx, but don't require content for either sort of site.
Islam is considered an "extension" of Christianity. It recognizes the Old and New Testaments as scripture, but it doesn't consider Christ divine. In fact, they generally believe that Christians are going to hell.
I heard on NPR tonight that Deep Blue "wasn't defending" his championship.
i.e. that IBM hasn't let Deep Blue play any more games, even though many have offered challenges. I doubt they'll let Kramnik play. I also heard that Kramnik is a lot better at playing against computers than Kaspy. Allegedly he beats them into the ground.
I actually prefer using the four arrow keys, so I've mapped my keyboard as such:
Left, Right, Up, Down = Forward, Backward, Strafe Left, Strafe Right
Control = Jump
Shift = Crouch (Sometimes I switch these two depending on what mood I'm in, but usually I use Jump a lot more.)
0/Ins = Switch weapon
Then there's the two (three) mouse buttons which are usually mapped to Change Weapon, Jump, and Shoot. Again, depending on my mood. That's usually all I need for a nice game of Quake.
Doesn't sound so evile
on
Typosquatting
·
· Score: 1
This doesn't sound so bad to me. If the site is particularly misleading so the person doesn't realize he has landed on the wrong site, that might be grounds to sue. Other than that?
Back when DivX;-) first appeared, I took a DVD, a handful of programs, and a lot of spare time to see what I could come up with. Here are my results:
It's not really that very difficult.
But it's not that easy, either. If you're a CS major, you should be able to do it in three or four hours. If you're an average Joe, good luck. You'll need it. MPAA, your day is coming, but it's not here yet. (See below.)
Fast Computer Needed
No kidding here, guys. On a PIII 350mghz, playback was choppy. Tom here used an 800mghz Thunderbird. You probably need around that to get decent playback.
Time
It took, on my aforementioned PIII, about seven hours to encode half an hour of Wallace and Gromit. Even with a smokin' computer, you'll probably need to let it run for a while.
Quality
It's not perfect, guys. Especially in scenes with lots of movement of colours (like an explosion), you get some fuzzies. It's about the quality difference from mp3 from cd, though, I'd say. I certainly wouldn't mind watching a movie in DivX;-) format, but it's no home theatre.
DeCSS
DeCSS makes it easy to rip a movie quickly, but other programs exist that are just as simple. I've heard rumours of one that brute-forces the key to the DVD--anybody know about this one? At any rate, I don't think it can be argued that DeCSS's even main purpose is for this sort of thing. It's obvious that DeCSS is used more often for some easy-listening music and t-shirt wear than for piracy.
Conclusion:
MPAA, your day is coming. But take note that it's because of DivX;-), just like the RIAA's problems are mp3 (not RealJukebox). As for DeCSS? You're barking up the wrong tree with that one. Of course, if you're worried about people disabling region codes and/or watching their DVDs on their Linux machines, DeCSS is your man.
1) If you actually think that this ruling will stop Microsoft from abusing their monopoly position, you have another think coming. It will take several years before this even happens (if?), and by then it will be quite too late.
2) I know, I know, it's been said a million times. But Linux has already pushed a lot of Microsoft's market share out the window (no pun intendid). Apache/PHP vs. IIE/ASP? No Contest. Things like this may not completely succeed, but they'll move a lot faster than the U.S. Gov.
My only worry is that people are stupid and everything will go to pot.
I've been involved in abandonware for quite a while, now. Ever since a friend of mine gave me Monkey Island a year or two back, I started my own Abandonware site. Sid Meyer's Civilization, Carmen Sandiego, Ice Man, Avoid the Noid... the list goes on.
Right now, I'm trying to compile some collections of older, abandonware-ish things that aren't necessarily software. I've taken most of my old audio tapes that can't be found any more (Jim Henson's Muppets, in particular) and made mp3s and/or cds out of them. Another thing I'd like to do is take classic television shows that people have recorded on various VHS tapes and put them into mpeg form. Knight Rider, The Muppet Show, Pinwheel,... things that you can't find in any store, but you would pay lots of money to have a complete collection.
If anybody is interested in this sort of thing, please email me: dlugar at byu dot edu
Further, note the prevalence of certain kinds of nonstandard plural forms. Some of these go back quite a ways; the TMRC Dictionary includes an entry which implies that the plural of `mouse' is meeces, and notes that the defined plural of `caboose' is `cabeese'. This latter has apparently been standard (or at least a standard joke) among railfans (railroad enthusiasts) for many years.
On a similarly Anglo-Saxon note, almost anything ending in `x' may form plurals in `-xen' (see VAXen and boxen in the main text). Even words ending in phonetic/k/ alone are sometimes treated this way; e.g., `soxen' for a bunch of socks. Other funny plurals are `frobbotzim' for the plural of `frobbozz' (see frobnitz) and `Unices' and `Twenices' (rather than `Unixes' and `Twenexes'; see Unix, TWENEX in main text). But note that `Unixen' and `Twenexen' are never used; it has been suggested that this is because `-ix' and `-ex' are Latin singular endings that attract a Latinate plural. Finally, it has been suggested to general approval that the plural of `mongoose' ought to be `polygoose'.
The pattern here, as with other hackish grammatical quirks, is generalization of an inflectional rule that in English is either an import or a fossil (such as the Hebrew plural ending `-im', or the Anglo-Saxon plural suffix `-en') to cases where it isn't normally considered to apply.
This is not `poor grammar', as hackers are generally quite well aware of what they are doing when they distort the language. It is grammatical creativity, a form of playfulness. It is done not to impress but to amuse, and never at the expense of clarity.
-----
Sure, if you think that the plural of 'virus' is 'virii' you're just as much of weirdo as if you think the plural of 'Unix' is 'Unices.'
But most people just do it for fun. Don't be silly.
IANAL, but I would think that all you're doing is providing the gzip'd source code in this "file containing a sequence of commands," encrypted using your mpeg file. I don't know how illegal that would be, though.
Slashdot Mirror
Note also that a lot of clients have safeguards to prevent this sort of thing. The one I've used before (BearShare) defaults to not return matches on *.exe files, *.vbs files, and other executables.
Also, I believe it (or at least some) will refuse to talk to other Gnutella users that always return matches. A simple thing to implement, really--just do have the client do an automatic search with a random string and exclude all clients that return 'nsdkjfnlnponf' as matching some file.
Dlugar
Ah, so this is where that post actually belonged.
*grin*
Dlugar
I remember having to read that in my Freshman English class in college.
I also remember when we came to class the next day, half the class somehow managed to think poor Jonathan Swift was serious.
I don't think the government even needs to be secret about it any more. People are too stupid to care.
Dlugar
In my CS class in college this happened. My CS Professor promised anyone an A who could write an iterative merge-sort algorithm before the next class (24 hours), thinking for some reason it was impossible. I had already been thinking on it, and I and two other students implemented it.
He retracted his offer on the class newsgroup, but told us three to stay after class to talk to him. We figured we'd get a bit of extra credit or something.
He said, "Now did I promise an A on a particular assignment, or did I say an A for the whole course?" We had been sure to extract a promise for the latter from him, and we informed him as such. He replied, "Well, I guess I've got to keep my word. You three get an A in the course."
I attended class, made As on the tests, but didn't do any of the rest of the work and failed the class. But true to his word, my instructor gave me an A for the course. I was very impressed, and the story circulated around the school.
So I suppose not every teacher is a lying kook trying to rip you off.
Dlugar
I've had this happen lots of times to me while sitting in Linux, but I've never seen a GUI file manager as being the solution.
For a huge honkin' list of mp3s, I'd open up something like FreeAmp if I wanted to double-click on them to hear the first few seconds. (Generally speaking, this isn't what I spend most of my time doing. I'd rather run mpg123 with a large random playlist in a different console.)
If I've got a bazillion different images, I'd open electric eyes or something similar with a thumbnail browser.
But never have I had the need for a basic GUI file manager. Now, if you're talking about specialized filelists inside of GUI programs, those can be helpful quite often. But I don't want an unhelpful generalized version of that.
And 90% of the time tabbing around in the command line is faster than even those specialized GUI programs.
Dlugar
Hey, folks,
Mod this article up! It's both
interesting and informative!
Sheesh.
I have two different versions of the song. (Did they play it twice or do I have two different recordings of the same concert?) A several many of the words are completely unintelligible. Does anyone (TMBG included) have the lyrics anywhere?
Dlugar
Who sang "I Might Be Giant, Too", one of your Dial-a-Song songs? It's one of my favourites, but I've heard it attributed to various people. And what are the lyrics for it? I've looked everywhere!
Where do you see copyright moving in the future? It seems to me that we have either two choices: we can get rid of it altogether or else this world will become a place devoid of Public Domain, full of Dongles and complicated copyright "phone-home" tactics (cf. Road to Tycho). Are creative artists going to have to go back to "patronage of the arts" and working on retainer to be able to live off their creative works? Is this worse or better than the current system, and why?
Do you think it's moral to use second-hand copywritten information if it (a) is not used for commercial or profit, and (b) does not effect the potential market value of said work?
Dlugar
I didn't mean the majority of the nation in raw acreage. Take a look at the number of states won by each candidate: 19 by Gore, 29 by Bush.
I'm not saying that each state should have an equal amount of votes. But those two votes allotted to each state regardless of population do have a very important effect. I, personally, wouldn't want to elect a president who has the support of, say, only New England. A president should have the support of the majority of the states.
Every other office in this country doesn't use the electoral college because there's no other office that is elected by the entirety of the populace. That's how it was meant to be. A 'true' democracy doesn't work. Take a look at the history books.
Point to ponder: do you think any president would pay attention to, for instance, the black population if there were no electoral college? They are a very small minority when taking the nation as a whole, but if you ignore them you likely lose support from many Southern states.
The Electoral College isn't a formality or a left-over of past years. It's a left-over of when we were a Republic and when the rights of the State were more than the rights of the Federal government. I don't think the people in this nation are homogenous enough to warrant the removal of the latter, and I don't think that a true democracy is more effective than an elected republic. Your opinions may differ.
Dlugar
(I know this is way down at the bottom, so not likely many will read it, but I'm still interested in people's opinions. Let me know what you think.)
My Ideas for United States General Election Reform:
The electoral college needs to stay. A president should be elected because he receives the support of the majority of the states, not the majority of the people in the nation. Small states and minorities would lose out considerably if the electoral college were completely abolished.
Alleged problems with the Electoral College:
Myth 1. The American people do not really elect the president
The American people, of course, still elect the president, but not directly. They never have. This is not a problem, and never has been. Some people like to point at elections in which the president has lost the popular vote, but won the office because of the Electoral College. A good example of this is George W. Bush in the 2000 election. If one were to look at a map of the United States, one would see that Bush won the support of the majority of the nation, while Gore won several pockets of large population. If the Electoral College were abolished, candidates could campaign only in these pockets of people, and win the office of the presidency even though the majority of states supported a different candidate.
Nobody argues that in a basketball tournament, the winner should be the team who scores the most total baskets combined from every game. The baskets have to be arranged to win games, just as the votes in a General Election have to be arranged to win states. However, I suggest to:
The electoral votes allotted to each State corresponds with the number of Representatives and Senators each State has in Congress. Instead of the majority winner in a particular state receiving the entirety of that state's electoral votes, have one electoral vote per Congressional district and two for the state majority.
Myth 2. Your vote counts for more if you're from a larger state
The number of electors a state received is directly proportional to the population of the state. Assuming that a state has 100% voter turnout, every vote counts as an identical percent of an elector. In fact, it is the smaller states whose vote counts for more, because each state has the two electors corresponding to Senators regardless of size. The problem ensues when one state has a high voter turnout, while another has a very low voter turnout. In the latter case, one's vote is worth quite a bit more. Therefore I propose that the number of electors be:
Using the national census, calculate the population of the United States and divide by 435 (the number of members in the House of Representatives). This will result in the number of people per congressional district. However, instead of counting basic population, count the number of people who voted in the previous general election. Then organize the congressional districts based on this information. This way, votes from states with large populations but with very low voter turn-out don't count for more than votes from states with higher voter turn-out.
Myth 3. Faithless electors can swing votes
A much-touted problem with the Electoral College, the fact that electors can change their vote at the last minute has never been a problem. In the very few times it has happened in this nation's history, not once has it even come close to changing the results of an election. In addition, the electors are generally chosen from the prominent members of the political party for whom your vote is case. That is to say, if you vote for a Republican president, you are in actuality voting for the Republican elector who has been chosen by party leaders. If your vote is cast for a Democratic president, you are electing the elector whom the Democrat party has chosen. There is very little chance that such a person would choose to go against the wishes of his party without good reason.
A bigger problem is that a president might be elected without gaining support of the majority of the nation, especially if the votes are divided among three or four parties. A form of run-off voting, such as Instant Runoff Voting or Instant Pair Runoff Voting (Condorcet), would solve this problem.
Instant Runoff Voting allows voters to rank candidates as their first choice, second choice, third, fourth, and so on. If a candidate does not receive clear majority of votes on the first count, a series of runoff counts are conducted, using each voter's top choices indicated on the ballot. The candidate who received the fewest first place ballots is eliminated. The ballots are then retabulated, with each counting as a vote for the top-ranked candidate listed on the ballot that is still in contention. Voters who chose the now-eliminated candidate have their votes transferred to their second choice candidate--just as if they were voting in a traditional two-round runoff election. This process continues until a candidate achieves more than fifty percent of the vote. However, this still encourages people not to "vote their conscience." A more effective system is the Condorcet, or "Instant Pair Runoff Voting" method.
In the Condorcet election method, voters rank the candidates in order of preference. The vote counting procedure then takes into account each preference of each voter for one candidate over another. It does so by conceptually breaking the election down into a series of separate races between each possible pairing of candidates, hence it is sometimes referred to as a "pairwise" method. If one of the candidates beats each of the other candidates in their one-on-one race, then that candidate wins. Otherwise, the result is ambiguous and an optimal procedure is used to resolve the ambiguity. Unlike our current plurality election method, the Condorcet system gives voters little incentive to falsify their true preferences.
More detailed information about Condorcet voting can be found here: http://russp.org/ElectionMethods.org/CondorcetEx.h tm.
Other thoughts to consider:
Thanks for your input. Please email me with comments and suggestions.
Dlugar
On the contrary! I think the only way for this to work is for ICANN to stay out of it. Rigidly enforcing content in various areas is only asking for trouble. Make .kids and .xxx, but don't require content for either sort of site.
DlugarAnd not only 'exactly one God,' but exactly the same God (Yahweh), too.
This does not bode well.
Islam is considered an "extension" of Christianity. It recognizes the Old and New Testaments as scripture, but it doesn't consider Christ divine. In fact, they generally believe that Christians are going to hell.
I heard on NPR tonight that Deep Blue "wasn't defending" his championship.
i.e. that IBM hasn't let Deep Blue play any more games, even though many have offered challenges. I doubt they'll let Kramnik play. I also heard that Kramnik is a lot better at playing against computers than Kaspy. Allegedly he beats them into the ground.
Dlugar
I actually prefer using the four arrow keys, so I've mapped my keyboard as such:
Then there's the two (three) mouse buttons which are usually mapped to Change Weapon, Jump, and Shoot. Again, depending on my mood. That's usually all I need for a nice game of Quake.
Dlugar
I rest my case.
Dlugar
A friend and I decided that if a word got a least 1000 hits in Google, it would qualify as a "real word" (no matter what Webster says).
Dynamicity is a real word.
Causationally is not.
Dlugar
This doesn't sound so bad to me. If the site is particularly misleading so the person doesn't realize he has landed on the wrong site, that might be grounds to sue. Other than that?
I don't see anything wrong with it.
Dlugar
Back when DivX;-) first appeared, I took a DVD, a handful of programs, and a lot of spare time to see what I could come up with. Here are my results:
But it's not that easy, either. If you're a CS major, you should be able to do it in three or four hours. If you're an average Joe, good luck. You'll need it. MPAA, your day is coming, but it's not here yet. (See below.)
No kidding here, guys. On a PIII 350mghz, playback was choppy. Tom here used an 800mghz Thunderbird. You probably need around that to get decent playback.
It took, on my aforementioned PIII, about seven hours to encode half an hour of Wallace and Gromit. Even with a smokin' computer, you'll probably need to let it run for a while.
It's not perfect, guys. Especially in scenes with lots of movement of colours (like an explosion), you get some fuzzies. It's about the quality difference from mp3 from cd, though, I'd say. I certainly wouldn't mind watching a movie in DivX;-) format, but it's no home theatre.
DeCSS makes it easy to rip a movie quickly, but other programs exist that are just as simple. I've heard rumours of one that brute-forces the key to the DVD--anybody know about this one? At any rate, I don't think it can be argued that DeCSS's even main purpose is for this sort of thing. It's obvious that DeCSS is used more often for some easy-listening music and t-shirt wear than for piracy.
Conclusion:
MPAA, your day is coming. But take note that it's because of DivX;-), just like the RIAA's problems are mp3 (not RealJukebox). As for DeCSS? You're barking up the wrong tree with that one. Of course, if you're worried about people disabling region codes and/or watching their DVDs on their Linux machines, DeCSS is your man.
Dlugar, bearer of the spork
I think it's a good idea that it's unable to regenerate fingerprints. Finally, some people with sense!
What happens, I wonder, when you smash your finger in a door and it doesn't recognize it? I assume there's some other way past this.
Also, does it continually validate, or is it more like a one-time 'screen saver password' replacement? That would be nifty.
It says Unix-compatible...I presume that means Linux, too?
Dlugar
1) If you actually think that this ruling will stop Microsoft from abusing their monopoly position, you have another think coming.
It will take several years before this even happens (if?), and by then it will be quite too late.
2) I know, I know, it's been said a million times. But Linux has already pushed a lot of Microsoft's market share out the window (no pun intendid). Apache/PHP vs. IIE/ASP? No Contest. Things like this may not completely succeed, but they'll move a lot faster than the U.S. Gov.
My only worry is that people are stupid and everything will go to pot.
But that's pretty much my worry no matter what.
Dlugar
I've been involved in abandonware for quite a while, now. Ever since a friend of mine gave me Monkey Island a year or two back, I started my own Abandonware site. Sid Meyer's Civilization, Carmen Sandiego, Ice Man, Avoid the Noid ... the list goes on.
... things that you can't find in any store, but you would pay lots of money to have a complete collection.
Right now, I'm trying to compile some collections of older, abandonware-ish things that aren't necessarily software. I've taken most of my old audio tapes that can't be found any more (Jim Henson's Muppets, in particular) and made mp3s and/or cds out of them. Another thing I'd like to do is take classic television shows that people have recorded on various VHS tapes and put them into mpeg form. Knight Rider, The Muppet Show, Pinwheel,
If anybody is interested in this sort of thing, please email me: dlugar at byu dot edu
Dlugar
(From the Jargon File)
/k/ alone are sometimes treated this way; e.g., `soxen' for a bunch of socks. Other funny plurals are `frobbotzim' for the plural of `frobbozz' (see frobnitz) and `Unices' and `Twenices' (rather than `Unixes' and `Twenexes'; see Unix, TWENEX in main text). But note that `Unixen' and `Twenexen' are never used; it has been suggested that this is because `-ix' and `-ex' are Latin singular endings that attract a Latinate plural. Finally, it has been suggested to general approval that the plural of `mongoose' ought to be `polygoose'.
Further, note the prevalence of certain kinds of nonstandard plural forms. Some of these go back quite a ways; the TMRC Dictionary includes an entry which implies that the plural of `mouse' is meeces, and notes that the defined plural of `caboose' is `cabeese'. This latter has apparently been standard (or at least a standard joke) among railfans (railroad enthusiasts) for many years.
On a similarly Anglo-Saxon note, almost anything ending in `x' may form plurals in `-xen' (see VAXen and boxen in the main text). Even words ending in phonetic
The pattern here, as with other hackish grammatical quirks, is generalization of an inflectional rule that in English is either an import or a fossil (such as the Hebrew plural ending `-im', or the Anglo-Saxon plural suffix `-en') to cases where it isn't normally considered to apply.
This is not `poor grammar', as hackers are generally quite well aware of what they are doing when they distort the language. It is grammatical creativity, a form of playfulness. It is done not to impress but to amuse, and never at the expense of clarity.
-----
Sure, if you think that the plural of 'virus' is 'virii' you're just as much of weirdo as if you think the plural of 'Unix' is 'Unices.'
But most people just do it for fun. Don't be silly.
Dlugar
IANAL, but I would think that all you're doing is providing the gzip'd source code in this "file containing a sequence of commands," encrypted using your mpeg file. I don't know how illegal that would be, though.