The problem with interface architecture is that it's geared towards making the most effective interface for the most people. So what we end up with is the most common mode for all users rather than the most effective mode for individual ones.
It's interesting that you're starting with the web, which uses text and visual communication modes. You can widen your scope to have your AI monitor the data and datatypes that flow to and from the user's IO media. Given an evolving model of the data and datatypes that are most efficient in facilitating comunication with the user, the AI can derive the communication modes that are most effective for the user (text, audio, lecture, video, pictures, graphs, comics, scent, braille...etc), and then dynamically model the internetworked data experience to best leverage those modes. This can be manifested as a web app, but it can also be a window manager or a kernel module that views the user as an i/o stream and optimizes the stream to maximize throughput in the available bandwidth.
The short version is a human-machine interface that self optimizes to most efficiently communicate with a particular user.
I've researched stuff like this in javascript. Basically, my system associates a string of digits "sA" representing categories on a 0-9 scale. There is a variable, "C" incremented every time a song is accessed. There is another variable, "uA" which is a string identicle in format to a given songs string "sA". When a user listens to a song, sA and uA's individual digits are sent to parseInt() and stuffed in arrays. The variables in uA's arrays are multiplied by C. Then uAArray[i] = uAArray[i] + sAArray[i]; in a for loop. C is incremented, uAArray[i] is divided by C, and uAArray is sent back out as a string and written as a cookie. Strings are used rather than sticking to arrays for persistence reasons. uA is then used to search a database of songs whose sA matches uA within tolerences, and the result is a means of pesenting the user with an evolving list of songs they may like.
So what we have here is a feedback loop that does what you're describing, but it isn't an AI.
Well, with Mot improving PPC at a breakneck snails pace, x86 porting would put the fear of got into mot and possibly convince them to get thier act together (seeing as how AMD and IBM seem to have no problem doing a great job with mot's technology). I don't think Apple wants to support multiple hardware platforms, it's costly and could fork their SE resources. With Darwin being open, Apple has a pointy stick to use on any of it's vendors who don't play ball. "we don't need technology x, geeks have already gotten our OS to run on technology y, so get your head out of your ass or you'll get no more $ from us." It's leverage for apple, and it helps consumers by widening Apple's R&D efforts.
It's also possible to convince Sorenson to port the codec to Linux in-house. More QT users == more money for them (licensing). If they see consumer demand for their codec on other platforms significant enough for them to profit from a port, they may do it. I'm a veteran mac evangelista and I've seen exactly this sort of thing work for the mac.
I've been a Mac user since 1984, and a Linux user for a couple of years. What I've really been looking forward to in OS X is the foundation, flexibility and power of UNIX with the ease of use of a mac. Quartz makes X windows look like an etch-a-sketch. Also, OS X's use of XML in config files is just inspired.
No matter how you feel about the above, you have to admit...a mainsteam consumer OS that you can make contribs to is fucking cool.
I don't know the extent to which it's implemented, but MP is already in the traditional MacOS NanoKernel. What's that, you didn't know the macos was on top of a kernel? That's been the case for over a year, and people were wondering "why" for just as long. Well, now we have our answer, in case people want to run that os on upcoming MP macs.
Still believe the MacOS doesn't have system level preemptive multiprocessing support? go here:
One thing has been left out of the equation here. Yes, the net is an awesome marketing/promotion tool for music. It costs next to nothing compared to tradtional promotion. Anybody can use it to promote their album...even the little guys, and that's what makes huge record companies scared.
Right now, the larger member companies of the RIAA, with all their money, have a lock on the music marketing aparatus. Namely, MTV and radio. Try being a garage band or teenie little lable trying to get airplay, competing with Time-Warner or Sony Music who hold leverage over this outlet. Because they're huge, and have lots of money and content to bribe, barter and pressure MTV and radio with....the little guy stays little, and the big oligopoly recording companies enjoy an advertizing barrier to entry in the music market.
Well, along comes the net and MP3 and the giants find themselves on a level playing field with some fifteen year olds in a garage. How do they compete with the rare gem in the rough...beautiful, masterful music from the ether, when they're mass-producing crappy pop and charging up the ass for it.
The answer is they scare everybody they can away from MP3, so the only way you're going to hear new music is through distribution channels they have control over. And you never hear the good music that could actually benefit and uplift mankind.
The RIAA is protecting themselves against poeple in garages, not people in dorm rooms.
Good thing I signed up under a pseudonym (not gonna say which one...that'd be stupid). Go ahead and try to prove I was ever on napster. Then try to prove that I did anything illegal. Then try to find me. Then try to find ALL of us.
This is all pretty stupid. Napster is a marketer's wet dream. Free promotion...massively parallel word-of-mouth memetic delivery system. If music industry marketing was a virus, Napster would be e-bola. One can easily break the MTV barier to entry in the relevant market through Napster chat. I've bought CD's because I heard some of the songs on them on Napster. The end users never reliably get whole ablums, and if so, it can take weeks or months (if that's the case, then buying the cd is much more convenient).
It's all acedemic anyway. Gnutella and Freenet will become hydras of free speech and information sharing. When faced with a tsunami, it's better to surf it than to stand against it.
Video editing is a HUGE market. There exists a solution on anything that'll run it. The big thing to think about when putting together an NLE (non linear editng) suite is what formats you will capture/output in.
Capturing. How are you going to log your tapes? Most productions have waves of interns logging the in and out points of all the juicy bits of video on a given reel. The producers then grab the logs, look at the pieces they have to deal with, and puzzle together a show with it (a jigsaw puzzle without benefit of a picure). They do this by generating an EDL (edit decision list) which contains the reels and smpte in/outs of all the clips they want to use. NLE software uses this file as an instruction sheet, and controlls the decks to send video to the capture card.
Output: Are you outputting to the web? NTSC? PAL? 601DV? The NLE solution you need may be much cheaper if you don't have to deal with the hack that is NTSC.
So it is imperitive that you take into account what video formats your tapes will be in (if analog, then you'll need a capture card and software that supports it, if DV, you need firewire and your NLE must have the DV codec). You may want to standardize on input format if analog, to save money on decks (you don't want to use your camera to send video to the NLE, what if you want to capture and shoot at the same time.) Output is important, because you may not need an expensive NLE if your putting movies on the web.
Unfortuneately, most of these suites are for NT (SCSI is a black art on these boxen), but some are cross platform. M=mac, W='doze, L=linux/D=DV codec, A=analog video:
If output is for the web, don't bother encoding in your suite. Render uncompressed and large and use something like media cleaner pro to encode while you sleep.
Yeah. Apple should convince Motorola to allow desktop PowerPC's to keep up with the market rather than hog glory/profits from it's partners. I for one would LOVE to run Linux on one of those fast G4's IBM has made. But motorola won't allow them to hit the market because they can't get their OWN process to work as well as third parties (IBM/AMD) have.
Darwin is Open Source. It won't be long until MacOS X runs on compelling alternatives to Motorola.
The one question that really concearns me is this. If a kid is truly disturbed, depressed potenetially violent, how will they respond to being "reported"? Imagine thinking that you only have a small, loose group of people who care about you...and that's the only thing that keeps you going from day to day. Now imagine that ONE of those people, you don't know who, has made it so that you are labeled as something less than human. Now your problems seem even worse.
If you were suicidal/homicidal before the "wave" hit you, this may be the event that makes you go through with what you've been trying not to do for your whole life.
The WAVE could increase the teen suicide rate dramatically.
Anybody capable of swining a sack full of doorknobs please report to redmond with said item. I'll try to convince Judge Jackson to let us use them as the remedy for the conclusion of law.
Well, it would be nice to open source those codecs, but that's entirely beyond Apple's control. Most of those codecs are third party and closed. Apple has to pay to license those codecs for use in quicktime player. The owners of the codecs are going to decide for/against(most likely against) on thier own schedules.
These developers may decide not to port their codecs to unix/linux. Apple wants all platforms quicktime runs on to have the same codec support as much as possible. So until the vast majority of the codecs needed by quicktime are ported to a given platform, there will not be Apple branded quicktime players for that platform.
Making a player for linux or any other X/unix system would be a mixed ordeal. MacOS X is based on BSD, but it doesn't use X windows, it has it's own neat-o windowing system based on vector graphics, so all the graphics processing is going to be different...a major port since this IS a media API and graphics might come into play.
Apple has a lot invested in staying ahead in the media layer space. I'm sure they won't blindly allow microsoft and real to just pull it out from under them. I think they want to crete a linux player, but they have to wait until the codec support arrives. Also, remember that microsoft stole and used quicktime code in media player several years ago (there was a lawsuit and everything). Some MS internal docs surfaced, the suit was dropped, and MS bought $150m of Apple stock.....I don't think Apple is going to open up quicktime and let microsoft do it again.
The biggest problem I have with traditional news media is that it's push, and it's dependent on advertising. Basically, I have no logistically sound way to rebutt the fallacies that litter america's news stories. If the inherent ignorance of a reporter (Reporters don't know what's going on, their job is to find out and tell us. By definition, this makes them all ignorant) doesn't kill a story's credibility, the fact that they don't want to lose enough sponsors such that they cannot operate will. I, as an citizen with in-depth, specialized knowlege have no realistic way of making corrections to these stories. I can write a letter to the editor, but maybe six readers will get published (space is money). There are more than six stories/paper. On the web, I can instantly post a retort that stays with the story, and other readers can add credit/discredit. In other words, sick data gets healed without editorial meddling.
Many of us, having specialized training in a given field, have read a newspaper story related to our field that was completely false. The majority of people don't know the difference, and they live out their lives thinking that the version in the story is true. This hurts us more than it helps us.
I am also reminded of the spanish american war. The push news media has the power to manufacture and capitolize on human suffering. They also can fool all of the people all of the time, if they put their minds to it.
During the Monica Lewinsky scandal, we were preparing for war in Kosovo. This was going on for over a year...the other NATO countries citizenry was informed of this. In America, the news media was enjoying quite the profit from a stained dress...they didn't care to inform us that our sons were being put in harms way.
Newspapers, then, are misleading. Sure, reading more increases literacy. However, reading newspapers resrticts a societies ability to become well informed, and degrades the stability of any democracy.
I will never subscibe to any news service. They are looking out for their own best interests. They don't even care if their actions cause the mass slaughter and maiming of our citizens (sure, footage of troops in combat in the gulf war will draw ratings, it will also tell the enemy where to aim the scud).
The only kind of news media I trust is that which follows this criteria:
A: I must be able to participate in and follow a public review process. Slashdot is such a forum...lies are exposed in under a day.
B: I should be able to check up on the reporter's sources. If I can copy text out of an AP wire story and paste it into a search engine to check credibility for free, there is no logical reason for me to pay for the same wire story in a form that doensn't give me this ability.
The only advantages paper has are as follows:
A: Power failures won't take the ink off of the page.
B: I can make my own newspaper and give it to people who can't afford computers
In other words...to ensure a well informed electorate and stop the inner collapse of the American system of government (starting in Kennedy v. Nixon debate), Papers and TV news should do one of the following:
A: Stop. Go away.
B: Admit being what you're trying so hard not to...tabloids
I love humanity. Stop misleading it to your own greedy ends. Eventually we'll catch on. It's better to do it now on good terms than face mass global wrath when humankind finds out how you've bent their minds.
tack
I think there may be a better reason for this
on
Darwin on Crusoe?
·
· Score: 1
Maybe Apple has no interest on shipping OSX or any of their os's on other processors. I think there is one tangible advantage of encouraging diverse development of darwin's kernel. The more platforms darwin runs on, the more people are working on the kernel. If Apple never ships a non-ppc machine, this move still enhances the quality of the os they bundel with their ppc boxes. I think they are trying to build a larger developer community for darwin in order to enhance the foundation of OSX on PPC.
There was no mention in the article about running on x86. This is more about being able to integrate more than one CPU type into the UMA-x chipset boards to eliminate shortage issues. IMHO, Apple doesn't want to make this move because of the heat and power advantages a small die size offers with the PPC as opposed to the huge/hungry x86's. They also are probably reluctant to use crusoe when they've gotten g4's to work in portables in house...too large of a performance hit.
Hey...this is a UNIX system...open up bash (I've heard you can do this in macos x DP2), ps -aux, kill aqua, run X. We're geeks, and Apple's giving us an OS we can really play with if we want to, or just get work done if we don't. Be happy.
I've been around Linux for a couple years, but it wasn't until the last 6 months or so that I've been really using it extensively. So the obstacles/hard things are fresh in my mind.
The problem with the documentation is that it's written by geeks. Often, when you're so well versed in something, you start to believe some things are common knowledge or easy to pick up. Not so. When you write a doc or guide. Write a test for people to take afterwards, and have them send it back to you when they're done. This will allow you to see what you've overlooked. Making it a web form should make this easy for all people involved.
A lot of the books I've come across tell you how to configure settings in linux using x. Well, what if the linux box used to be your windows box and it doesn't run x? Lots of people begin their linux usage on a discarded windows PC. If we don't help these people out, they'll reinstall windows. There needs to be a reference that shows the newbie how to use and understand linux from the CLI.
Every newbie needs a mentor user. Often, a new user will have really good books and docs, but will lack the context or experience to make sense of all the data. Having a friend who's already walked the same ground is important, because they can listen to your questions and figure out what it is you're really trying to find out. I suggest that we make (if not in place already) a site that will locate the LUG nearest to you and give you contact info so that newbies can get a proper indoctrination into the community (from more of the "elder statesman" users).
Well....that's my two cents, having recently scaled the learning curve.
Users already logged on to the service would not have been affected. Users whose login information was available from another location through a process known as caching also would not have noticed a disruption in service. In addition, knowledgeable users could have accessed the site by writing their own login script and including their password and username.
Sanford said that because not all of the Hotmail servers were affected by the problem, not all of Hotmail's users had difficulties. She added that updates to the system frequently take hours to take effect, making it difficult to judge exactly when the problem started or ended.
So if I make my own login script, I can bypass passport? Does this mean we can get around their verification system, and use the older one that allowed you to get into any userid's account if you gave them the right url?
And does it also mean that when a hole becomes public, that that window will still be open for a few hours?
This is not a new thought. Using many machines on many subnets to flood an IP in concert. This particular incarnation of this attack is just another straw in the haystack. Given knowlege if the functionality of a client's stack, you should be able to find a way to make it do similar things. Just spoof an IP and ping it....there's no genius to that. Using false return addresses has been a tool of the malevolent since people hung numbers on their caves. Actually, using one OS to do this is unwise because one patch or fix can foil all your plans. It is tactically more sound to use multiple OS's in such a scheme, so that if one OS fixes the problem, the others may still function properly.
I'm just glad people still think these are ingenious means of attack. There are much more devilish ways to DoS.
Slashdot Mirror
The problem with interface architecture is that it's geared towards making the most effective interface for the most people. So what we end up with is the most common mode for all users rather than the most effective mode for individual ones.
It's interesting that you're starting with the web, which uses text and visual communication modes. You can widen your scope to have your AI monitor the data and datatypes that flow to and from the user's IO media. Given an evolving model of the data and datatypes that are most efficient in facilitating comunication with the user, the AI can derive the communication modes that are most effective for the user (text, audio, lecture, video, pictures, graphs, comics, scent, braille...etc), and then dynamically model the internetworked data experience to best leverage those modes. This can be manifested as a web app, but it can also be a window manager or a kernel module that views the user as an i/o stream and optimizes the stream to maximize throughput in the available bandwidth.
The short version is a human-machine interface that self optimizes to most efficiently communicate with a particular user.
or hack tevo to the same ends
I've researched stuff like this in javascript. Basically, my system associates a string of digits "sA" representing categories on a 0-9 scale. There is a variable, "C" incremented every time a song is accessed. There is another variable, "uA" which is a string identicle in format to a given songs string "sA". When a user listens to a song, sA and uA's individual digits are sent to parseInt() and stuffed in arrays. The variables in uA's arrays are multiplied by C.
Then uAArray[i] = uAArray[i] + sAArray[i];
in a for loop. C is incremented, uAArray[i] is divided by C, and uAArray is sent back out as a string and written as a cookie. Strings are used rather than sticking to arrays for persistence reasons. uA is then used to search a database of songs whose sA matches uA within tolerences, and the result is a means of pesenting the user with an evolving list of songs they may like.
So what we have here is a feedback loop that does what you're describing, but it isn't an AI.
Well, with Mot improving PPC at a breakneck snails pace, x86 porting would put the fear of got into mot and possibly convince them to get thier act together (seeing as how AMD and IBM seem to have no problem doing a great job with mot's technology). I don't think Apple wants to support multiple hardware platforms, it's costly and could fork their SE resources. With Darwin being open, Apple has a pointy stick to use on any of it's vendors who don't play ball. "we don't need technology x, geeks have already gotten our OS to run on technology y, so get your head out of your ass or you'll get no more $ from us." It's leverage for apple, and it helps consumers by widening Apple's R&D efforts.
It's also possible to convince Sorenson to port the codec to Linux in-house. More QT users == more money for them (licensing). If they see consumer demand for their codec on other platforms significant enough for them to profit from a port, they may do it. I'm a veteran mac evangelista and I've seen exactly this sort of thing work for the mac.
I've been a Mac user since 1984, and a Linux user for a couple of years. What I've really been looking forward to in OS X is the foundation, flexibility and power of UNIX with the ease of use of a mac. Quartz makes X windows look like an etch-a-sketch. Also, OS X's use of XML in config files is just inspired.
No matter how you feel about the above, you have to admit...a mainsteam consumer OS that you can make contribs to is fucking cool.
I don't know the extent to which it's implemented, but MP is already in the traditional MacOS NanoKernel. What's that, you didn't know the macos was on top of a kernel? That's been the case for over a year, and people were wondering "why" for just as long. Well, now we have our answer, in case people want to run that os on upcoming MP macs.
h tml#mpapi
Still believe the MacOS doesn't have system level preemptive multiprocessing support? go here:
http://developer.apple.com/technotes/tn/tn1176.
Hey all,
....the little guy stays little, and the big oligopoly recording companies enjoy an advertizing barrier to entry in the music market.
One thing has been left out of the equation here. Yes, the net is an awesome marketing/promotion tool for music. It costs next to nothing compared to tradtional promotion. Anybody can use it to promote their album...even the little guys, and that's what makes huge record companies scared.
Right now, the larger member companies of the RIAA, with all their money, have a lock on the music marketing aparatus. Namely, MTV and radio. Try being a garage band or teenie little lable trying to get airplay, competing with Time-Warner or Sony Music who hold leverage over this outlet. Because they're huge, and have lots of money and content to bribe, barter and pressure MTV and radio with
Well, along comes the net and MP3 and the giants find themselves on a level playing field with some fifteen year olds in a garage. How do they compete with the rare gem in the rough...beautiful, masterful music from the ether, when they're mass-producing crappy pop and charging up the ass for it.
The answer is they scare everybody they can away from MP3, so the only way you're going to hear new music is through distribution channels they have control over. And you never hear the good music that could actually benefit and uplift mankind.
The RIAA is protecting themselves against poeple in garages, not people in dorm rooms.
Good thing I signed up under a pseudonym (not gonna say which one...that'd be stupid). Go ahead and try to prove I was ever on napster. Then try to prove that I did anything illegal. Then try to find me. Then try to find ALL of us.
This is all pretty stupid. Napster is a marketer's wet dream. Free promotion...massively parallel word-of-mouth memetic delivery system. If music industry marketing was a virus, Napster would be e-bola. One can easily break the MTV barier to entry in the relevant market through Napster chat. I've bought CD's because I heard some of the songs on them on Napster. The end users never reliably get whole ablums, and if so, it can take weeks or months (if that's the case, then buying the cd is much more convenient).
It's all acedemic anyway. Gnutella and Freenet will become hydras of free speech and information sharing. When faced with a tsunami, it's better to surf it than to stand against it.
Video editing is a HUGE market. There exists a solution on anything that'll run it. The big thing to think about when putting together an NLE (non linear editng) suite is what formats you will capture/output in.
Capturing.
How are you going to log your tapes? Most productions have waves of interns logging the in and out points of all the juicy bits of video on a given reel. The producers then grab the logs, look at the pieces they have to deal with, and puzzle together a show with it (a jigsaw puzzle without benefit of a picure). They do this by generating an EDL (edit decision list) which contains the reels and smpte in/outs of all the clips they want to use. NLE software uses this file as an instruction sheet, and controlls the decks to send video to the capture card.
Output:
Are you outputting to the web? NTSC? PAL? 601DV? The NLE solution you need may be much cheaper if you don't have to deal with the hack that is NTSC.
So it is imperitive that you take into account what video formats your tapes will be in (if analog, then you'll need a capture card and software that supports it, if DV, you need firewire and your NLE must have the DV codec). You may want to standardize on input format if analog, to save money on decks (you don't want to use your camera to send video to the NLE, what if you want to capture and shoot at the same time.) Output is important, because you may not need an expensive NLE if your putting movies on the web.
Unfortuneately, most of these suites are for NT (SCSI is a black art on these boxen), but some are cross platform. M=mac, W='doze, L=linux/D=DV codec, A=analog video:
suggested suites:
Edit (discreet logic) W/A
Avid (avid) MW/A
Final Cut Pro (Apple) M/DA
Broadcast2000 (Open Source) L/A
Premiere (Adobe) MW/A
If output is for the web, don't bother encoding in your suite. Render uncompressed and large and use something like media cleaner pro to encode while you sleep.
Hardware:
One word...SCSI, RAID if you can
MKLinux runs on MACH 3.0. It would be cool to run MacOS X and MKLinux CONCURRENTLY on the same box. They would both just be MACH server processes
Yeah. Apple should convince Motorola to allow desktop PowerPC's to keep up with the market rather than hog glory/profits from it's partners. I for one would LOVE to run Linux on one of those fast G4's IBM has made. But motorola won't allow them to hit the market because they can't get their OWN process to work as well as third parties (IBM/AMD) have.
Darwin is Open Source. It won't be long until MacOS X runs on compelling alternatives to Motorola.
The one question that really concearns me is this. If a kid is truly disturbed, depressed potenetially violent, how will they respond to being "reported"? Imagine thinking that you only have a small, loose group of people who care about you...and that's the only thing that keeps you going from day to day. Now imagine that ONE of those people, you don't know who, has made it so that you are labeled as something less than human. Now your problems seem even worse.
If you were suicidal/homicidal before the "wave" hit you, this may be the event that makes you go through with what you've been trying not to do for your whole life.
The WAVE could increase the teen suicide rate dramatically.
Hey all,
Anybody capable of swining a sack full of doorknobs please report to redmond with said item. I'll try to convince Judge Jackson to let us use them as the remedy for the conclusion of law.
Well, it would be nice to open source those codecs, but that's entirely beyond Apple's control. Most of those codecs are third party and closed. Apple has to pay to license those codecs for use in quicktime player. The owners of the codecs are going to decide for/against(most likely against) on thier own schedules.
These developers may decide not to port their codecs to unix/linux. Apple wants all platforms quicktime runs on to have the same codec support as much as possible. So until the vast majority of the codecs needed by quicktime are ported to a given platform, there will not be Apple branded quicktime players for that platform.
Making a player for linux or any other X/unix system would be a mixed ordeal. MacOS X is based on BSD, but it doesn't use X windows, it has it's own neat-o windowing system based on vector graphics, so all the graphics processing is going to be different...a major port since this IS a media API and graphics might come into play.
Apple has a lot invested in staying ahead in the media layer space. I'm sure they won't blindly allow microsoft and real to just pull it out from under them. I think they want to crete a linux player, but they have to wait until the codec support arrives. Also, remember that microsoft stole and used quicktime code in media player several years ago (there was a lawsuit and everything). Some MS internal docs surfaced, the suit was dropped, and MS bought $150m of Apple stock.....I don't think Apple is going to open up quicktime and let microsoft do it again.
tack
Freenet
Let's make regulation moot.
The biggest problem I have with traditional news media is that it's push, and it's dependent on advertising. Basically, I have no logistically sound way to rebutt the fallacies that litter america's news stories. If the inherent ignorance of a reporter (Reporters don't know what's going on, their job is to find out and tell us. By definition, this makes them all ignorant) doesn't kill a story's credibility, the fact that they don't want to lose enough sponsors such that they cannot operate will. I, as an citizen with in-depth, specialized knowlege have no realistic way of making corrections to these stories. I can write a letter to the editor, but maybe six readers will get published (space is money). There are more than six stories/paper. On the web, I can instantly post a retort that stays with the story, and other readers can add credit/discredit. In other words, sick data gets healed without editorial meddling.
Many of us, having specialized training in a given field, have read a newspaper story related to our field that was completely false. The majority of people don't know the difference, and they live out their lives thinking that the version in the story is true. This hurts us more than it helps us.
I am also reminded of the spanish american war. The push news media has the power to manufacture and capitolize on human suffering. They also can fool all of the people all of the time, if they put their minds to it.
During the Monica Lewinsky scandal, we were preparing for war in Kosovo. This was going on for over a year...the other NATO countries citizenry was informed of this. In America, the news media was enjoying quite the profit from a stained dress...they didn't care to inform us that our sons were being put in harms way.
Newspapers, then, are misleading. Sure, reading more increases literacy. However, reading newspapers resrticts a societies ability to become well informed, and degrades the stability of any democracy.
I will never subscibe to any news service. They are looking out for their own best interests. They don't even care if their actions cause the mass slaughter and maiming of our citizens (sure, footage of troops in combat in the gulf war will draw ratings, it will also tell the enemy where to aim the scud).
The only kind of news media I trust is that which follows this criteria:
A: I must be able to participate in and follow a public review process. Slashdot is such a forum...lies are exposed in under a day.
B: I should be able to check up on the reporter's sources. If I can copy text out of an AP wire story and paste it into a search engine to check credibility for free, there is no logical reason for me to pay for the same wire story in a form that doensn't give me this ability.
The only advantages paper has are as follows:
A: Power failures won't take the ink off of the page.
B: I can make my own newspaper and give it to people who can't afford computers
In other words...to ensure a well informed electorate and stop the inner collapse of the American system of government (starting in Kennedy v. Nixon debate), Papers and TV news should do one of the following:
A: Stop. Go away.
B: Admit being what you're trying so hard not to...tabloids
I love humanity. Stop misleading it to your own greedy ends. Eventually we'll catch on. It's better to do it now on good terms than face mass global wrath when humankind finds out how you've bent their minds.
tack
Maybe Apple has no interest on shipping OSX or any of their os's on other processors. I think there is one tangible advantage of encouraging diverse development of darwin's kernel. The more platforms darwin runs on, the more people are working on the kernel. If Apple never ships a non-ppc machine, this move still enhances the quality of the os they bundel with their ppc boxes. I think they are trying to build a larger developer community for darwin in order to enhance the foundation of OSX on PPC.
There was no mention in the article about running on x86. This is more about being able to integrate more than one CPU type into the UMA-x chipset boards to eliminate shortage issues. IMHO, Apple doesn't want to make this move because of the heat and power advantages a small die size offers with the PPC as opposed to the huge/hungry x86's. They also are probably reluctant to use crusoe when they've gotten g4's to work in portables in house...too large of a performance hit.
'nuff said
Hey...this is a UNIX system...open up bash (I've heard you can do this in macos x DP2), ps -aux, kill aqua, run X. We're geeks, and Apple's giving us an OS we can really play with if we want to, or just get work done if we don't. Be happy.
not true abot protected mem in win 9x....because of hi/lo mem...the lower 1 meg isn't protected. Isn't that where the OS lives?
I've been around Linux for a couple years, but it wasn't until the last 6 months or so that I've been really using it extensively. So the obstacles/hard things are fresh in my mind.
The problem with the documentation is that it's written by geeks. Often, when you're so well versed in something, you start to believe some things are common knowledge or easy to pick up. Not so. When you write a doc or guide. Write a test for people to take afterwards, and have them send it back to you when they're done. This will allow you to see what you've overlooked. Making it a web form should make this easy for all people involved.
A lot of the books I've come across tell you how to configure settings in linux using x. Well, what if the linux box used to be your windows box and it doesn't run x? Lots of people begin their linux usage on a discarded windows PC. If we don't help these people out, they'll reinstall windows. There needs to be a reference that shows the newbie how to use and understand linux from the CLI.
Every newbie needs a mentor user. Often, a new user will have really good books and docs, but will lack the context or experience to make sense of all the data. Having a friend who's already walked the same ground is important, because they can listen to your questions and figure out what it is you're really trying to find out. I suggest that we make (if not in place already) a site that will locate the LUG nearest to you and give you contact info so that newbies can get a proper indoctrination into the community (from more of the "elder statesman" users).
Well....that's my two cents, having recently scaled the learning curve.
this is from the article
Users already logged on to the service would not have been affected. Users whose login information was available from another location through a process known as caching also would not have noticed a disruption in service. In addition, knowledgeable users could have accessed the site by writing their own login script and including their password and username.
Sanford said that because not all of the Hotmail servers were affected by the problem, not all of Hotmail's users had difficulties. She added that updates to the system frequently take hours to take effect, making it difficult to judge exactly when the problem started or ended.
So if I make my own login script, I can bypass passport? Does this mean we can get around their verification system, and use the older one that allowed you to get into any userid's account if you gave them the right url?
And does it also mean that when a hole becomes public, that that window will still be open for a few hours?
This is not a new thought. Using many machines on many subnets to flood an IP in concert. This particular incarnation of this attack is just another straw in the haystack. Given knowlege if the functionality of a client's stack, you should be able to find a way to make it do similar things. Just spoof an IP and ping it....there's no genius to that. Using false return addresses has been a tool of the malevolent since people hung numbers on their caves. Actually, using one OS to do this is unwise because one patch or fix can foil all your plans. It is tactically more sound to use multiple OS's in such a scheme, so that if one OS fixes the problem, the others may still function properly.
I'm just glad people still think these are ingenious means of attack. There are much more devilish ways to DoS.