This effectively makes the command line as powerful as it is in Unix.
You have to be joking. Have you ever tried to actually use the "cmd.exe" program? Are you familiar with the capabilities of even the simplest UNIX shell? The "cmd.exe" program seems to me as if it were written by somebody who overheard a brief conversation about what UNIX shells can do. Just about everything about it is inadequate by comparison: quoting syntax, wildcards, variable expansion, conditionals, iteration, redirection, etc. It's useless for all but the most absolutely basic launching of programs.
Guess what you can do with a proprietary digital interface connecting your monitor to your trusted computing platform? That's right! You can add in more Digital "Rights" enforcement mechanisms! Remember that the ultimate goal is total secure control over all the electronics between the media and the glowing phosphor in the screen and the vibrating elements in your speakers.
I hooked up the innards of the DEC Ultrix C++ debugger (then called "Ladebug" internally)to a homebrew FM synthesis toolkit to do exactly this. The debugger allowed tracepoints to be hooked to particular instruments and note values. It was cool.
Zeosync's web site is gone, as far as I can tell. I presume that means that they're gone too, since the web site was the bulk of their technological achievement.
1. Smart (or dumb) guys form startup around good idea. Version 1.0 gets written in a frenzy of caffeine and beer, riddled with bugs because it has to be delivered before the money runs out.
2. Mistakes made in version 1 are sworn off as version 2 is designed. Version 2 is built by the swell of 2nd-generation coders, hired as fast as possible and sent to work unsupervised by the overworked 1st-generation engineers.
3. Version 2 is delivered with all the good ideas on the surface, but implemented by less-than-excellent coders.
4. Widespread adoption funds much additional hiring. Anything vaguely mammalian is hired to fix bugs and work on new features and new products. Most 1st-generation engineers leave with their money. Product design and development is run by people who don't know what they're doing.
Right. And along the way it'd be nice if they figure out how to know how many "modules" a project will require, since currently that's as impossible to accurately predict as is the manpower requirement.
As long as there's a product management group who can drop "Oh by the way" new requirements on the product a week after code freeze, there'll always be a problem.
Depending on their "generator" function, they might have a decent cryptosystem or they might not, but IT IS NOT A ONE-TIME PAD by definition. Symmetric cyphers that aren't one-time pads can ALL be called "one-time pads" under that bogus definition, since generating a long sequence of random numbers to apply to the plaintext is pretty much what a cypher does.
And here I was just reminiscing fondly about ZeoSync the other day, when another scam pops up!
IE runs just fine under VMWare. I can't imagine, in fact, what you could possibly do to make it not work. I run Win2K (very rarely) under VMWare on Linux with no problems whatsoever. IE, SQL Server Manager & query analyzer, Outlook, Visual Studio, etc etc all work a-OK.
It's interesting that no mention at all is made in the article of the fact that the success of any DRM scheme is utterly dependent upon the legal foundation of DMCA-like laws. The details of the various schemes are unimportant, and their currently escalating sophistication is simply a passing phase. Eventually it will become clear that all that matters is the threat of criminal punishment at the hands of compliant governments. All these fancy cryptosystems will devolve to the ROT-13 level of complexity.
This is not meant as a joke or a troll. Why, in the long run, should anybody invest in expensive complex technologies when simple cheap ones satisfying the letter of the law will suffice? As successive DRM implementations fall before the incessant pressure of educated people bent on their defeat, corporate interests whose profit stream rests on control of their "intellectual property" will throw up their hands and cry "terrorist!" to a Senate committee. Mark my words.
The wireless PDA thing has been around for a while in various forms. So where are the applications that are going to make it an imperative for some market segment to invest in the things? Maybe I'm not paying attention, but I can't even think of any *attempts* at killer apps. I mean, AOL IM? I'm going to carry around one of these things so people can message me? I've got a pager and a cell phone that most people find workable.
Where are the apps that wiggle in to some part of everybody's daily life and change it forever? To me, anything that requires me to behave much differently than I do now is probably doomed, as only gadget-heads will play. But something that made sense to soccer moms, and something that they could grow to find indispensible, that'd be the key for this to take off. And that'd be wonderful for the gadget heads, because ubiquity would make a lot more applications viable.
Reading Mundie's article made it crystal clear what all of this Microsoft security stuff is about. It has nothing to do with increasing security of their products, per se. It's all about engineering a market perception that Microsoft is a single entity that has the ability to make announcements like this, to offer commitments (empty or not), and be a focus of trust. Read the article -- note the implications that in order to have trust in software, you need some corporate entity in which to place your trust.
Guess what competition will be easy for their marketing machine to paint as being lacking in the trustable big established multi-billion-dollar company department? Sure there's IBM, but experience suggests that Microsoft are fully up to the challenge of out-marketing IBM.
Yelling "FIRE!" in the middle of a crowded theatre is dangerous, and illegal.
Cite please. While it may be that you could be prosecuted should you start a panic by yelling "FIRE", that is not the same as it being illegal to do so a priori.
As far as I can tell, the materials on the web site have changed. I curse myself for not saving any of the original stuff that was out there when their press releases went out. It's hard to recall clearly whether they used the term "lossless" originally, mainly because all the information on the site is such obfuscated gibberish.
Search around for articles based on the original press release, however, and you'll note that they all discuss "lossless compression". Indeed, that fact is what made it so obvious a scam in the first place.
They've revised their bogus org chart, so it would not surprise me at all if they'd rescind the claims of lossless "hundreds to one" compression. Way less interesting in that case, of course.
No. The IBM AS/400 product group considers NT to be the Great Satan. There is absolutely positively NO WAY IN HELL that NT was ever run on AS/400 hardware.
First of all, the port would be a MASSIVELY HUGE effort. AS/400 hardware is not of this earth. And what in the name of all that rocks would be in it for Microsoft?
Fine. But guess what? All the input to their compressor is digital. I invite you to describe a general, practical way of picking a fractal system or polynomial or whatever that will regenerate a given 128Kb string.
"Breakthrough" compression schemes are the perpetual motion machines of the 21st century. Any technological claim that's introduced with the statement that they've broken through the boundaries of information theory falls way on the wrong side of Occam's razor for me.
Think about it: 100-to-1 compression of random data? Just think in terms of first principles: How many bit strings are there of a given length? How would you reduce the size of a binary description that identifies a particular one? And note that the random data thing is straight from their press release!
Doubtful Sony would allow something like that, without charging a arm-and-leg for it...
DRM! It's so freaking obvious. It's all about a world where everything is cryptographically secured so that the delivery of copyrighted material - the whole experience - can be controlled by the copyright holder.
What's your point, troll? As with export bans on cryptographic software, the "supercomputer" ban did absolutely nothing to prevent anybody from acquiring whatever technology they wanted. Indeed, since an avowed purpose of the ban was to prevent places like Pakistan from developing nuclear weapons technology, it's pretty clear that the ban was ineffective.
With modern clustering technology, China can quite easily build its own supercomputers; I'm sure it does already.
Slashdot Mirror
You have to be joking. Have you ever tried to actually use the "cmd.exe" program? Are you familiar with the capabilities of even the simplest UNIX shell? The "cmd.exe" program seems to me as if it were written by somebody who overheard a brief conversation about what UNIX shells can do. Just about everything about it is inadequate by comparison: quoting syntax, wildcards, variable expansion, conditionals, iteration, redirection, etc. It's useless for all but the most absolutely basic launching of programs.
Guess what you can do with a proprietary digital interface connecting your monitor to your trusted computing platform? That's right! You can add in more Digital "Rights" enforcement mechanisms! Remember that the ultimate goal is total secure control over all the electronics between the media and the glowing phosphor in the screen and the vibrating elements in your speakers.
I hooked up the innards of the DEC Ultrix C++ debugger (then called "Ladebug" internally)to a homebrew FM synthesis toolkit to do exactly this. The debugger allowed tracepoints to be hooked to particular instruments and note values. It was cool.
Zeosync's web site is gone, as far as I can tell. I presume that means that they're gone too, since the web site was the bulk of their technological achievement.
1. Smart (or dumb) guys form startup around good idea. Version 1.0 gets written in a frenzy of caffeine and beer, riddled with bugs because it has to be delivered before the money runs out.
2. Mistakes made in version 1 are sworn off as version 2 is designed. Version 2 is built by the swell of 2nd-generation coders, hired as fast as possible and sent to work unsupervised by the overworked 1st-generation engineers.
3. Version 2 is delivered with all the good ideas on the surface, but implemented by less-than-excellent coders.
4. Widespread adoption funds much additional hiring. Anything vaguely mammalian is hired to fix bugs and work on new features and new products. Most 1st-generation engineers leave with their money. Product design and development is run by people who don't know what they're doing.
Also, note that there was no real style guide while early commands were being implemented. People decided they wanted a utility, and they wrote it.
And HA HA HA HA HA.
Right. And along the way it'd be nice if they figure out how to know how many "modules" a project will require, since currently that's as impossible to accurately predict as is the manpower requirement.
As long as there's a product management group who can drop "Oh by the way" new requirements on the product a week after code freeze, there'll always be a problem.
Depending on their "generator" function, they might have a decent cryptosystem or they might not, but IT IS NOT A ONE-TIME PAD by definition. Symmetric cyphers that aren't one-time pads can ALL be called "one-time pads" under that bogus definition, since generating a long sequence of random numbers to apply to the plaintext is pretty much what a cypher does.
And here I was just reminiscing fondly about ZeoSync the other day, when another scam pops up!
IE runs just fine under VMWare. I can't imagine, in fact, what you could possibly do to make it not work. I run Win2K (very rarely) under VMWare on Linux with no problems whatsoever. IE, SQL Server Manager & query analyzer, Outlook, Visual Studio, etc etc all work a-OK.
It's interesting that no mention at all is made in the article of the fact that the success of any DRM scheme is utterly dependent upon the legal foundation of DMCA-like laws. The details of the various schemes are unimportant, and their currently escalating sophistication is simply a passing phase. Eventually it will become clear that all that matters is the threat of criminal punishment at the hands of compliant governments. All these fancy cryptosystems will devolve to the ROT-13 level of complexity.
This is not meant as a joke or a troll. Why, in the long run, should anybody invest in expensive complex technologies when simple cheap ones satisfying the letter of the law will suffice? As successive DRM implementations fall before the incessant pressure of educated people bent on their defeat, corporate interests whose profit stream rests on control of their "intellectual property" will throw up their hands and cry "terrorist!" to a Senate committee. Mark my words.
The wireless PDA thing has been around for a while in various forms. So where are the applications that are going to make it an imperative for some market segment to invest in the things? Maybe I'm not paying attention, but I can't even think of any *attempts* at killer apps. I mean, AOL IM? I'm going to carry around one of these things so people can message me? I've got a pager and a cell phone that most people find workable.
Where are the apps that wiggle in to some part of everybody's daily life and change it forever? To me, anything that requires me to behave much differently than I do now is probably doomed, as only gadget-heads will play. But something that made sense to soccer moms, and something that they could grow to find indispensible, that'd be the key for this to take off. And that'd be wonderful for the gadget heads, because ubiquity would make a lot more applications viable.
Reading Mundie's article made it crystal clear what all of this Microsoft security stuff is about. It has nothing to do with increasing security of their products, per se. It's all about engineering a market perception that Microsoft is a single entity that has the ability to make announcements like this, to offer commitments (empty or not), and be a focus of trust. Read the article -- note the implications that in order to have trust in software, you need some corporate entity in which to place your trust.
Guess what competition will be easy for their marketing machine to paint as being lacking in the trustable big established multi-billion-dollar company department? Sure there's IBM, but experience suggests that Microsoft are fully up to the challenge of out-marketing IBM.
Cite please. While it may be that you could be prosecuted should you start a panic by yelling "FIRE", that is not the same as it being illegal to do so a priori.
As far as I can tell, the materials on the web site have changed. I curse myself for not saving any of the original stuff that was out there when their press releases went out. It's hard to recall clearly whether they used the term "lossless" originally, mainly because all the information on the site is such obfuscated gibberish.
Search around for articles based on the original press release, however, and you'll note that they all discuss "lossless compression". Indeed, that fact is what made it so obvious a scam in the first place.
They've revised their bogus org chart, so it would not surprise me at all if they'd rescind the claims of lossless "hundreds to one" compression. Way less interesting in that case, of course.
I'll give them the benefit of the doubt and say it was all a big typo :-)
The ones I sent mail to seemed (from, mainly, their personal/professional web sites) to be "regular guys". They're real researchers and educators.
No. The IBM AS/400 product group considers NT to be the Great Satan. There is absolutely positively NO WAY IN HELL that NT was ever run on AS/400 hardware.
First of all, the port would be a MASSIVELY HUGE effort. AS/400 hardware is not of this earth. And what in the name of all that rocks would be in it for Microsoft?
Fine. But guess what? All the input to their compressor is digital. I invite you to describe a general, practical way of picking a fractal system or polynomial or whatever that will regenerate a given 128Kb string.
They are named! Look around the website for the "org chart".
No, that's not right: read their press release. They explicitly claim to be able to compress the output of the compressor.
"Breakthrough" compression schemes are the perpetual motion machines of the 21st century. Any technological claim that's introduced with the statement that they've broken through the boundaries of information theory falls way on the wrong side of Occam's razor for me.
Think about it: 100-to-1 compression of random data? Just think in terms of first principles: How many bit strings are there of a given length? How would you reduce the size of a binary description that identifies a particular one? And note that the random data thing is straight from their press release!
DRM! It's so freaking obvious. It's all about a world where everything is cryptographically secured so that the delivery of copyrighted material - the whole experience - can be controlled by the copyright holder.
BING!!! Give that man a cigar. I think that's exactly right.
What about Opera? You may disagree that it's better, but it's clear that the company is certainly trying.
What's your point, troll? As with export bans on cryptographic software, the "supercomputer" ban did absolutely nothing to prevent anybody from acquiring whatever technology they wanted. Indeed, since an avowed purpose of the ban was to prevent places like Pakistan from developing nuclear weapons technology, it's pretty clear that the ban was ineffective.
With modern clustering technology, China can quite easily build its own supercomputers; I'm sure it does already.