Try switching to Linux, it seems to have 64 bit support for a great deal of hardware built right into the system. Just a couple of graphics cards really that the closed-source drivers can't be fixed without the profit-oriented manufacturers either doing it themselves or giving the necessary docs to the user-oriented Linux developers.
yes, local normally means user-space software running on the system can exploit it. That means any program you type in, compile, and run from a physically attached keyboard, or through ssh, or even any code that a local daemon or client program is tricked into using. That means possibly one of those old libpng buffer overflows can be used to insert code into mozilla and eventually get root - you have patched those seemingly unimportant security announcements haven't you?
To be limited to a physical access exploit, it would need to be a bug in the keyboard driver, the input layer, or possibly a user-space program that uses raw keyboard entry. I don't think screwdriver level access counts, since you can lock your machine up. Filesystem bugs could be exploitable via usb drives, floppy disks, cf drives, etc... Those are physical exploits rather than local.
A peer does not upload to another peer that has not been uploading, but does upload faster to a peer that has also been uploaded. Thus Bittorrent works very well for downloaders that upload too, and not well for those that don't. Thus those that refuse to upload do not use the system, and the others enjoy a better experience and the system becomes popular. That means it becomes even more effective.
The cockfaces that won't upload are struggling to get a 10MB file in a week via KAZAA because all the non-cockfaces have stopped using kazaa and there is hardly anybody left uploading at more than 1Kbps.
What is punishment and why do you want to do it to people.
Is punishment "to cause pain and/or anguish", or is it "to stop somebody wanting to do something they shouldn't be doing". If the latter, then his punishment has already been done - I bet he is very, very scared, and I bet he will think more about the consequences of his actions now. If the former, then just find some local kid and arse-rape him so you get your pain and anguish fix.
Interesting that project managers say the factors that they are paid to manage are the ones that are most important and higher risk (and thus justify the most funding, of course).
I also think that the chosen dimensions are not orthogonal. The methodology chosen is influenced by experience with similar projects... If your architects have done something similar before, then a structured approach will be extremely effective, if they haven't, then an iterative approach as they work out how to do it.
All in all, a pointless study that will do more harm than good.
Theora also has some changes that allow potentially much higher quality - although the reference encoder doesn't use them yet. Also the current reference encoder tries to encode noise very faithfully, and that causes noticeable quality issues (especially "beating" at low bitrates on noisy source data). Having said that, I normally find Theora to be noticeably better quality at the same bitrate than DivX.
Re:Which hash algorithm are you talking about?
on
LokiTorrent vs. MPAA
·
· Score: 1
My apologies in advance, as it is late and this is rambling with poorly constructed and long sentences - and I am not a lawyer and am not practising law or offering legal advice herein:
I said:
Before you can do any of that, you need to find an algorithm for doing it that is easier than contacting the sharer directly
He/she said:
BitTorrent trackers do exactly that. Given an "info hash", a tracker gives the IP addressses of clients sharing pieces of a file with that hash. A&M Records v. Napster may apply to LokiTorrent's tracker (if it has one).
I hereby respond:
Yeah, but so can DNS. I doubt it is reasonable to go after companies running free DNS services just because someone posts a DNS entry to a warez site, so why is it reasonable to go after bittorrent trackers?
I could understand if the people running the trackers refused to remove the identified material after being given notice, or refused to provide logs of the torrent poster when a subpoena is issued. But the comments I was replying to suggested that the act of supplying a free, automated information service was illegal if one or more of the anonymous users abuses it.
If you make torrent trackers illegal, you must do it for doing things it shouldn't be doing... but those things are also done by other systems - and so they shouldn't be doing them either.
The only thing they could have the tracker staff for is not complying with reasonable requests to prevent the abuse of their system for specific peices of information that the automated system can be programmed to identify and remove. But if the MPAA won't provide the necessary information, then the staff have not yet done anything wrong.
The onus should be on the MPAA to declare that a given user has not been given permission by the copyright holder to post a torrent to the site for that data. And to declare that they (the MPAA) have authority from the copyright holder to act on their behalf so that the tracker administrators can be certain that they do not prevent a user from exercising a right to distribute some collection of data. Then the administrators can remove the torrent in question.
Any other way and the tracker administrators are acting as judge without authority. I'm not sure, but that may be in breach of contract, if so then they must *not* do anything until the MPAA has made the necessary declarations for each set of data they claim to be the authority on distribution rights. Any lawyers care to comment on promising to provide a tracker in exchange for helping to make their web site popular (in order to obtain ad revenue) then they renege on that promise when they don't know that the user does not have the appropriate distribution rights?
What if posters must read and agree to a terms and conditions whereby they endorse that they have the necessary distribution rights for the resource they are posting a torrent for?
If the MPAA makes reasonable requests, and the tracker admins act in a reasonable manner in response to those requests, I don't see any problem. The only illegal actions will have been the people posting the data (having not ensured they have the right to seed a peer-to-peer system). Peers should be able to expect that the original seed is responsible for determining if they can take part in the peer-to-peer system wrt that resource.
I don't believe that an automated system can be left wholly and permanently unattended unless anybody is permitted to remove torrents as, to be responsible, a system must be designed to certainly allow the poster to remove a resource once contacted by a rights holder, or allow the rights holder to remove a resource (like copies left on a common). This is not possible if a system is to be safe from abuse, so must be attended in this mannar. For that reason, a web-host should be able to disable a website that is unattended and provides this sort of service if a rights holder can show that their material is being abused with no other way to prevent the abuse.
Re:Which hash algorithm are you talking about?
on
LokiTorrent vs. MPAA
·
· Score: 1
If I distribute a hash, the receiver does *not* have any easier access to the original work than they have access to any arbitrary member of the set that the hash refers to. Even if you take the intersection of that set with the set of all valid/near valid divx files, there will be many valid divx files. To get to the original work, you must then intersect *that* set with the set of all non-nonsense divx files.
Before you can do any of that, you need to find an algorithm for doing it that is easier than contacting the sharer directly before distributing the hash helps anybody to infringe on a copyright any more than putting a photocopier in a library does.
I agree. Very few people know how to configure a Windows network, so it works out quite expensive, just as with Linux. Either that or they do it wrong, then throw money away every day on lost productivity.
Note to managers responsible for IT purchases: You have Windows at home, so you feel comfortable with it. So fucking what, you're supposed to be making money for the company you work for, or effectively performing to your charity's charter. Spending other peoples money on making yourself comfortable is probably a breach of your contract.
Note to Linux zealots: see above.
Before choosing an IT infrastructure, identify the *real* requirements (having a menu labelled "Start" rather than with a picture of a foot is not required, and vice versa). And consider the effective lifetime of your purchase (a Windows set-up doesn't last as long as a Linux one as Linux upgrades come anywhere from cheap to free) Experience with the Windows desktop is not a bonus, as (despite the protestations of lazy people) even idiots can switch with incredible ease. My parents are living proof, they can handle Linux as well as Windows after about five minutes ("Hmm, Applications, I think... Perhaps Internet... Ah-ha, that same Firefox program I use on *my* computer").
Re:Which hash algorithm are you talking about?
on
LokiTorrent vs. MPAA
·
· Score: 1
It doesn't matter whether you can compute them or not. That digest is a number that (for a good hash) represents a set of byte sequences that are each very different from all the others in that set. Specifically, it represents a set of byte sequences, and not just one of them. That means the original data is only nominally present in that it is one of an infinite number of byte streams that a brute force inverse of the hash function would turn up. That is the same as starting with nothing, and brute forcing a file from that - one byte stream out of an infinite number.
This is the difference between the physical and digital worlds.
Re:Devil's Advocate: Derived works
on
LokiTorrent vs. MPAA
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
The same hash can be calculated via a systematic method from an infinite number of other byte sequences of various lengths.
Not to mention that there is no artistic value in this hash, so it can't be a derived work, since it is not a work.
Slashdot Mirror
and anyway, they can just have a couple of pulleys instead and extend the length of the muscle through the pulleys, over and over.
Yes, we do have it here ;)
It came into force on the 1st Jan
Surely these specs are releaseable under the ne Freedom of Information Act
Try switching to Linux, it seems to have 64 bit support for a great deal of hardware built right into the system. Just a couple of graphics cards really that the closed-source drivers can't be fixed without the profit-oriented manufacturers either doing it themselves or giving the necessary docs to the user-oriented Linux developers.
Except that in the case of murder, it is the police that want information about the perpetrator, and not some unaccountable corporation.
The number one innovation is...
The Fleshlight! Super-tight, just like prom night.
Seems to be running his blog on the same machine as they used at the CES presentation.
yes, local normally means user-space software running on the system can exploit it. That means any program you type in, compile, and run from a physically attached keyboard, or through ssh, or even any code that a local daemon or client program is tricked into using. That means possibly one of those old libpng buffer overflows can be used to insert code into mozilla and eventually get root - you have patched those seemingly unimportant security announcements haven't you?
To be limited to a physical access exploit, it would need to be a bug in the keyboard driver, the input layer, or possibly a user-space program that uses raw keyboard entry. I don't think screwdriver level access counts, since you can lock your machine up. Filesystem bugs could be exploitable via usb drives, floppy disks, cf drives, etc... Those are physical exploits rather than local.
Coming soon... First Post 2005
No, they mostly haven't worked out paper yet. Except the rolled up kind.
A peer does not upload to another peer that has not been uploading, but does upload faster to a peer that has also been uploaded. Thus Bittorrent works very well for downloaders that upload too, and not well for those that don't. Thus those that refuse to upload do not use the system, and the others enjoy a better experience and the system becomes popular. That means it becomes even more effective.
The cockfaces that won't upload are struggling to get a 10MB file in a week via KAZAA because all the non-cockfaces have stopped using kazaa and there is hardly anybody left uploading at more than 1Kbps.
Yeah, but any PC box doesn't look like a set top, nor does it come with software support or the HP brand confidence.
I wonder if it'll run any of MythTV
It is a different HP, the old godly HP is a brown spicey sauce that British members of parliament enjoy in their bacon and egg sarnies.
What is punishment and why do you want to do it to people.
Is punishment "to cause pain and/or anguish", or is it "to stop somebody wanting to do something they shouldn't be doing". If the latter, then his punishment has already been done - I bet he is very, very scared, and I bet he will think more about the consequences of his actions now. If the former, then just find some local kid and arse-rape him so you get your pain and anguish fix.
Interesting that project managers say the factors that they are paid to manage are the ones that are most important and higher risk (and thus justify the most funding, of course).
I also think that the chosen dimensions are not orthogonal. The methodology chosen is influenced by experience with similar projects... If your architects have done something similar before, then a structured approach will be extremely effective, if they haven't, then an iterative approach as they work out how to do it.
All in all, a pointless study that will do more harm than good.
That's exactly what the name "stable" refers to. "Unchanging", you put it on a server and expect to only need to update for security fixes.
That's why it is so long between stable releases... They have to make sure you can install and forget (except for the security fixes).
If you want a workstation use ubuntu, essentially a combination of testing/unstable. Or unstable.
Theora is based on VP3.2
Theora also has some changes that allow potentially much higher quality - although the reference encoder doesn't use them yet. Also the current reference encoder tries to encode noise very faithfully, and that causes noticeable quality issues (especially "beating" at low bitrates on noisy source data). Having said that, I normally find Theora to be noticeably better quality at the same bitrate than DivX.
My apologies in advance, as it is late and this is rambling with poorly constructed and long sentences - and I am not a lawyer and am not practising law or offering legal advice herein:
I said:
Before you can do any of that, you need to find an algorithm for doing it that is easier than contacting the sharer directly
He/she said:
BitTorrent trackers do exactly that. Given an "info hash", a tracker gives the IP addressses of clients sharing pieces of a file with that hash. A&M Records v. Napster may apply to LokiTorrent's tracker (if it has one).
I hereby respond:
Yeah, but so can DNS. I doubt it is reasonable to go after companies running free DNS services just because someone posts a DNS entry to a warez site, so why is it reasonable to go after bittorrent trackers?
I could understand if the people running the trackers refused to remove the identified material after being given notice, or refused to provide logs of the torrent poster when a subpoena is issued. But the comments I was replying to suggested that the act of supplying a free, automated information service was illegal if one or more of the anonymous users abuses it.
If you make torrent trackers illegal, you must do it for doing things it shouldn't be doing... but those things are also done by other systems - and so they shouldn't be doing them either.
The only thing they could have the tracker staff for is not complying with reasonable requests to prevent the abuse of their system for specific peices of information that the automated system can be programmed to identify and remove. But if the MPAA won't provide the necessary information, then the staff have not yet done anything wrong.
The onus should be on the MPAA to declare that a given user has not been given permission by the copyright holder to post a torrent to the site for that data. And to declare that they (the MPAA) have authority from the copyright holder to act on their behalf so that the tracker administrators can be certain that they do not prevent a user from exercising a right to distribute some collection of data. Then the administrators can remove the torrent in question.
Any other way and the tracker administrators are acting as judge without authority. I'm not sure, but that may be in breach of contract, if so then they must *not* do anything until the MPAA has made the necessary declarations for each set of data they claim to be the authority on distribution rights. Any lawyers care to comment on promising to provide a tracker in exchange for helping to make their web site popular (in order to obtain ad revenue) then they renege on that promise when they don't know that the user does not have the appropriate distribution rights?
What if posters must read and agree to a terms and conditions whereby they endorse that they have the necessary distribution rights for the resource they are posting a torrent for?
If the MPAA makes reasonable requests, and the tracker admins act in a reasonable manner in response to those requests, I don't see any problem. The only illegal actions will have been the people posting the data (having not ensured they have the right to seed a peer-to-peer system). Peers should be able to expect that the original seed is responsible for determining if they can take part in the peer-to-peer system wrt that resource.
I don't believe that an automated system can be left wholly and permanently unattended unless anybody is permitted to remove torrents as, to be responsible, a system must be designed to certainly allow the poster to remove a resource once contacted by a rights holder, or allow the rights holder to remove a resource (like copies left on a common). This is not possible if a system is to be safe from abuse, so must be attended in this mannar. For that reason, a web-host should be able to disable a website that is unattended and provides this sort of service if a rights holder can show that their material is being abused with no other way to prevent the abuse.
If I distribute a hash, the receiver does *not* have any easier access to the original work than they have access to any arbitrary member of the set that the hash refers to. Even if you take the intersection of that set with the set of all valid/near valid divx files, there will be many valid divx files. To get to the original work, you must then intersect *that* set with the set of all non-nonsense divx files.
Before you can do any of that, you need to find an algorithm for doing it that is easier than contacting the sharer directly before distributing the hash helps anybody to infringe on a copyright any more than putting a photocopier in a library does.
No, please... Not the verruca gnome.
I agree. Very few people know how to configure a Windows network, so it works out quite expensive, just as with Linux. Either that or they do it wrong, then throw money away every day on lost productivity.
Note to managers responsible for IT purchases: You have Windows at home, so you feel comfortable with it. So fucking what, you're supposed to be making money for the company you work for, or effectively performing to your charity's charter. Spending other peoples money on making yourself comfortable is probably a breach of your contract.
Note to Linux zealots: see above.
Before choosing an IT infrastructure, identify the *real* requirements (having a menu labelled "Start" rather than with a picture of a foot is not required, and vice versa). And consider the effective lifetime of your purchase (a Windows set-up doesn't last as long as a Linux one as Linux upgrades come anywhere from cheap to free) Experience with the Windows desktop is not a bonus, as (despite the protestations of lazy people) even idiots can switch with incredible ease. My parents are living proof, they can handle Linux as well as Windows after about five minutes ("Hmm, Applications, I think... Perhaps Internet... Ah-ha, that same Firefox program I use on *my* computer").
It doesn't matter whether you can compute them or not. That digest is a number that (for a good hash) represents a set of byte sequences that are each very different from all the others in that set. Specifically, it represents a set of byte sequences, and not just one of them. That means the original data is only nominally present in that it is one of an infinite number of byte streams that a brute force inverse of the hash function would turn up. That is the same as starting with nothing, and brute forcing a file from that - one byte stream out of an infinite number.
This is the difference between the physical and digital worlds.
The same hash can be calculated via a systematic method from an infinite number of other byte sequences of various lengths.
Not to mention that there is no artistic value in this hash, so it can't be a derived work, since it is not a work.
You haven't been here long have you