What exactly are you trying to make secure? Do you really think that this can prevent house intrusion? I hope not. Checking the internet or your cell phone and seeing a blurry picture of some guy with a mask going through your drawers is going to accomplish... what? If you wanted to use the footage as evidence, you'd better use tape; any decent defense lawyer will get x10-type footage thrown out of court because it's so easy to manipulate. And if you're trying to use this to watch your unsupervised children, you're an irresponsible sicko and you'd be much better off spending your money on a babysitter instead.
In general, it looks to me like you haven't really thought this through. I suspect you don't need any such camera at all.
In general, your post makes you sound like a paranoid pussy with too much stuff in your house and too much money to blow, who for some reason feel the need to brag about this on Slashdot. Well, I'm not impressed.
You're right to some extent about sharereactor - though it was a search engine, not a "post what's new" site in the say SuprNova was.
I think I would have made myself clearer if I had said: The difference in speed btw eMule and BT is a function of sociology, and has nothing to do with the structure of the network itself. If eMule users behaved more like BT users, the edonkey network would attain BT speeds. (In fact, if you hook up with the Digital Archive Project, you'll see your download bandwidth quickly max out in eDonkey.) What's great about BT is not the network but the users, who tend not to limit their upload.)
So you're saying that you think I'm making this up? And for the benefit of some corporation? If so, fuck you.
Re:Of course he doesn't care about security...
on
Firefox vs. SP2's IE?
·
· Score: 4, Interesting
My strategy? Ask people "Hey, do you want me to install a plugin that keeps you from downloading all these stupid ads that show up on web pages?" Believe me, nobody says "no" most are amazed that such a thing could ever work. Then I install Firefox and import my block strings into Adblock, making sure the user figures out that they will not be using IE anymore.
When I get asked about this, I try to look surprised and say "bah, you mean you thought Internet Explorer could do somehting this cool? No way! What you need for this sort of thing is an optimized browser - you know, optimized for speed and useability and all sorts of other cool things. You want me to show you some? Watch this... suppose I want to go back to the previous page [mouse gesture left]. Cool, eh? Wanna see how I did that?"
The lesson is: install some extensions as well as Firefox. It's mind-numbingly easy, and it gets new users really interested in customizing their Firefox further. Once they start with that, they'll never go back.
I almost lost my job because Thunderbird decided to stop fetching emails without any warning, and it took two days before I got to read the messages with titles like "Catastrophe immanent, reply immediately!!!" That bug is still not fixed, btw., just in case some of you also have a job that sometimes sends you important emails.
I like it, but it sounds complicated enough to make it somehting that should have its own specific application. But really, that's not crazy. I figure you could build into a BitTorrent client some sort of a Freenet interface so it could 1) upload to Freenet any trackers you might have made and 2) download from Freenet information about any trackers that have been uploaded (hopefully fast).
Then you would have Suprnova inside your bittorrent client itself, hosted in a distributed manner by the whole world. That would be hard to defeat.
I salute you. Ignore all the people saying that there is no technical solution to this problem, so we shouldn't even try. There is no reason to not persue both tracks in parallel, and if with your spare developer time and disposable income to succeed in your life's mission and produce an unbreakable, fast form of BitTorrent, you will be the world's hero.
This is not to say that we should let unjust laws stand, but pinning our hopes on a successful legislative outcome is pure desparation. If an unbreakable, fast BitTorrent variant were available, it would definitely accelerate the legal process of improving our IP laws. Anyway, cheers! And good hunting.
I take it that the legal objection was to the hosting of trackers, not the torrents. Anyway, if there was any trouble because of the links, the sites could always just have a blurb that says "Enterprise 4x09 is now uploaded to the network" and you'd use search to find it. Or maybe you could write out the hash, and then you could search by hash. A bit less convenient, but at least it's pure information and no linking.
Then I was thinking that maybe the edonkey network itself could host some sort of a Suprnova-like site, but in a distributed fashion. It would require some extra work to make it annonymously postable and yet not easily spoofable... then I thought that maybe Freenet would be the perfect place for hosting such a thing! Why not move SuprNova to Freenet?
BitTorrent has a queue as well; it's just much shorter because there are more people sharing the file you're looking for, and there's more bandwidth available. Think about it: I've never heard of a case where someone sharing anything remotely worthwhile on emule didn't have their upload bandwidth maxed out. So both clients are equally fast, namely, as fast as people are able/willing to upload. For some reason (partly because simple BT clients don't have the option to limit uploads) there is much more upload bandwidth available in BT, but if the same bandwidth were available in the ed2k network, dowloads there would be equally fast.
I think Suprnova and others should switch from hosting trackers to hosting edonkey2k links. They're just links so they're legal, and the system is much more robust and has a good client (emule).
And before people say that emule is slower than BT, that's because people rush to BT files in massive waves and then forget them, but while they're fresh, they go fast. If people swarmed to ed2k files as quickly, the speed would be the same. After all, emule doesn't use (much) more overhead bandwidth than BT, so in both networks, downloadrate=uploadrate.
I think this is the right moment for making the switch.
Seeing that the USA spends $5Billion per month on the occupation of Iraq, I think we have very little grounds to call this a "pork barrel" project. These satellites will be undeniably useful to everyone in the world. Compared to other things that $2.1B buys you, this is a great deal.
So yes, this is an excellent idea, but now the question I have is this:
Who will do the actual reading of all these books whose copyrights expired? And, under what terms will these reading performances be distributed?
Even if the text they read is public domain, the rights to the performance of the reading belong to the performer, and can be bought and sold if the performer chooses. He or she can also choose to release the performances into the public domain with a copyleft license. Obviously, this is what I would prefer. Then, the controversies of storage would be less pressing. There would need to be a fail-safe central archive of the recordings at maximum quality (maybe losslessly compressed, or not at all), and then the libraries would "loan out" compressed versions of these files in whatever format makes sense at the time. These days I'd say it's mp3; in the future, the format with the widest playback possibilities will hopefully be something better.
What I'm worried about is that the libraries will get commercial companies to do proprietary performances, so they will be much less free to distribute them according to the needs of their patrons. This is a real shame. For a long time I've wanted to have an open-source project to read certain classics in English whose copyright has expired. I've actually gotten started; see here. I think that if the libraries of the english-speaking world asked nicely and pooled their resources, they could get a whole bunch of the classics read by excellent performers, and released to the general public. I'm in the middle of listening to Ian McKellan reading The Odyssey and it's incredibly moving and entertaining. This isn't just for the visually impaired, you know.
Anyway, if libraries are going to do this, they have to do it right, because they won't get a chance to re-do it. I think they are setting themselves up for hardship if somebody else owns the rights to the stuff they distribute, even if it makes a few things easier at the start. So let's stop bickering about file formats and concentrate on the important stuff.
Thank you for making me aware of this. I wasn't really out looking for a new remote, but now that I've seen this I might just find myself getting one. Since programmable remotes are available, why would anyone ever buy something else?
Well, I thought I'd try this, since my Linux partition needed a rewrite, and I was intrigued by the single disk deal which auto-fetches RPMs. But it turned out to be a very sloppy disk indeed.
First of all, installation just got stuck and needed a hard reboot just because one of my disks is SATA. Gah, is SATA isn't exactly bleeding edge stuff... Once I figured out what was killing the installer, I disabled that disk in bios and the installer let me go on. I set up my internet connection and I asked it to fetch extra packages by FTP, since I wan't planning to install a whole lot at the start. Well sure, the servers are probably busy, but can you guess how the installer reacts to that? Yup, it just cuts out. The big grey box in the installer just gets empty, the pointer turns into the hourglass, and that's how it stays. That's just sloppy and disappointing.
So I finally just reformatted and stopped asking the installer to try getting stuff from servers, saying I only have this one disk. From there the setup went fine, but it left me with a system that has exactly one GUI application: the terminal. If they put in a graphical file manager, rpm manager and maybe Mozilla (they had plenty of space on the disk), I would have had more of a will to go on, but as it is, I think I'll just go to bed and overwrite this monstrosity with something else. That is, unless somebody can recommend a way to go on with the installation from the GUI.
SETI@Home isn't really a market, but it accomplishes something many people care about. A global nework of machines predicting the weather and outputting their results for all to see might gather lots of volunteers. And it might not, but the idea is certainly worth exploring, since the raw data is available.
I don't watch television, except the very rare occasion when I want to catch some sporting event.
There is good stuff on television, about 0.2% of it. But people on the internet are aware of this tiny sliver of quality, and make it very easy to get. Then I can watch it whenever I want, and without commercials.
The best stuff on television has these elaborate story arcs, making it almost necessary to watch the episodes in the correct order. There are three alternatives for doing this. One is to become a TV slave, dropping whatever you're doing every week at a specific time to catch the airing of the episode. Otherwise, you can wait for the DVD release, which might take years. Or, you can rely on the generosity of the people on the internet and download the episodes from them in the proper order. The last option is by far the most convenient. With BitTorrent and eMule, you just declare what you want, and the shows download much faster than any reasonable person is able to watch them. Can anything compare to this sort of convenience? Well, TV people had better figure something out. In my life, TV programming has become irrelevant, and I have a feeling that more and more people will feel the same way.
Ironically, I feel like this year, I'm in much better touch with what's going on in TV-land. I'm catching up with Six Feet Under, the new Battlestar Galactica, Drawn Together and the Daily Show, all stuff I wasn't watching last year. Funny thing is, last year I had cable. This year, I got rid of it and just hooked up my living room television to my bedroom computer, and set up a pretty slick way to control my computer from my living room with a wireless keyboard and mouse. Now the TV gets watched a whole lot more. How long will it be before many people have this sort of setup? Not long...
Well, read the appendix of the report, and specifically look at the graphs. They run perfectly parallel experiments with H2O and D2O and consistently get very different results. So if Pons "admitted" there's no extra effect from heavy water, he made a mistake. Why is that so hard to believe? We've now had 15 years to check it out, and the results are repeatable and the effect is pretty large. Of course, you might be right in your conclusion, but your reasons are either ignorant or stupid.
(1) The existence of a physical effect that produces heat in metal deuterides. The heat is measured
in quantities greatly exceeding all known chemical processes and the results are many times in
excess of determined error using several kinds of apparatus. In addition, the observations have
been reproduced, can be reproduced at will when the proper conditions are reproduced, and
show the same patterns of behavior. Furthermore, many of the reasons for failure to reproduce
the heat eect have been discovered.
(2) The production of 4He as an ash associated with this excess heat, in amounts commensurate
with a reaction mechanism consistent with D + D 4He + 23.8 MeV (heat).
(3) A physical eect that results in the emission of: (a) energetic particles consistent with d(d,n)3He
and d(d,p)t fusion reactions, and (b) energetic alphas and protons with energies in excess of 10
MeV, and other emissions not consistent with deuteron-deuteron reactions.
I don't know how that reads to you, but to me it sounds like they've been consistently observing this dramatic effect for 15 years and they can't explain it. I think this is exactly the right thing for scientists to muck around with. I'm not saying it's cold fusion, but it's something they can't explain. So they had better get cracking and explain it!
Mercurial Communications works closely with Microsoft, and are in charge of Netscape coding. They are embracing Firefox and adding ActiveX with a cheap hack - and who knows what else? Should we be scared? Might this be a plan for Firefox extinction? (A plan only, mind you... no reason to think it would ever work, but I don't know the secret ??? step so I'm not qualified to judge.)
Or, should we really see this as Firefox embracing ActiveX in an attempt to try to crush Explorer faster? Will they extend on it with XUL? Or... is IE about to take over XUL? Wow, this really looks like a war again!
I wonder whether a well-rehearsed lie would show the same traces as telling the truth. I think the point is, you want to get your story down do much that you tell it automatically, without thinking, which is what the prefrontal cortex does. So to be a good liar you might need to "brainwash" yourself, but nothing in the article makes me think that's impossible.
That's funny. My old wired mouse felt too light and flimsy to me, so I opened it and glued some pennies inside with a glue gun to make it feel more substantial. It really seemed to increase the accuracy.
Now I'm happy with my optical wired mouse. It's exactly the weight I want.
Yeah, I read it, but I thought those comments were pretty dumb. Well, maybe not dumb... but look, a usability expert can be educated and apply usability principles correctly, but that doesn't mean he's right. If you put an artist, a usability expert and a hardcore coder in exclusive charge of a project design, they will each come up with very different monsters. Each of them has only one hammer, and to each of them, the problems of design all look like nails.
Now, specifically about the comments regarding Firefox: It would be monstrous to make a huge "back" button in Firefox, just because you click it more. By that reasoning, all buttons should be different size, proportionately to how likely they are to be clicked. That would be nuts! There are five buttons in Firefox. Making one of them large would mean either: the entire button bar must get fatter, or the button has to stick out over the page (might be kinda cool), or it would have to stck up into the menu bar (stupid), or it would stay the same size and the other buttons would shrink (stupid). Well, this is something he doesn't think of because this guy is obviously not much of a designer. Yeah, he can rattle off some "principles" of interface design, and they might be useful, but blindly following any principles, as this guy seems to do, will not generally lead to a good outcome. You also need to have taste.
Slashdot Mirror
In general, it looks to me like you haven't really thought this through. I suspect you don't need any such camera at all.
In general, your post makes you sound like a paranoid pussy with too much stuff in your house and too much money to blow, who for some reason feel the need to brag about this on Slashdot. Well, I'm not impressed.
I think I would have made myself clearer if I had said: The difference in speed btw eMule and BT is a function of sociology, and has nothing to do with the structure of the network itself. If eMule users behaved more like BT users, the edonkey network would attain BT speeds. (In fact, if you hook up with the Digital Archive Project, you'll see your download bandwidth quickly max out in eDonkey.) What's great about BT is not the network but the users, who tend not to limit their upload.)
So you're saying that you think I'm making this up? And for the benefit of some corporation? If so, fuck you.
When I get asked about this, I try to look surprised and say "bah, you mean you thought Internet Explorer could do somehting this cool? No way! What you need for this sort of thing is an optimized browser - you know, optimized for speed and useability and all sorts of other cool things. You want me to show you some? Watch this... suppose I want to go back to the previous page [mouse gesture left]. Cool, eh? Wanna see how I did that?"
The lesson is: install some extensions as well as Firefox. It's mind-numbingly easy, and it gets new users really interested in customizing their Firefox further. Once they start with that, they'll never go back.
I almost lost my job because Thunderbird decided to stop fetching emails without any warning, and it took two days before I got to read the messages with titles like "Catastrophe immanent, reply immediately!!!" That bug is still not fixed, btw., just in case some of you also have a job that sometimes sends you important emails.
Then you would have Suprnova inside your bittorrent client itself, hosted in a distributed manner by the whole world. That would be hard to defeat.
This is not to say that we should let unjust laws stand, but pinning our hopes on a successful legislative outcome is pure desparation. If an unbreakable, fast BitTorrent variant were available, it would definitely accelerate the legal process of improving our IP laws. Anyway, cheers! And good hunting.
Then I was thinking that maybe the edonkey network itself could host some sort of a Suprnova-like site, but in a distributed fashion. It would require some extra work to make it annonymously postable and yet not easily spoofable... then I thought that maybe Freenet would be the perfect place for hosting such a thing! Why not move SuprNova to Freenet?
BitTorrent has a queue as well; it's just much shorter because there are more people sharing the file you're looking for, and there's more bandwidth available. Think about it: I've never heard of a case where someone sharing anything remotely worthwhile on emule didn't have their upload bandwidth maxed out. So both clients are equally fast, namely, as fast as people are able/willing to upload. For some reason (partly because simple BT clients don't have the option to limit uploads) there is much more upload bandwidth available in BT, but if the same bandwidth were available in the ed2k network, dowloads there would be equally fast.
Now that it's gone, what is there to mirror? The old stuff? That's not really so useful. Also, weren't suprnova also hosting trackers?
And before people say that emule is slower than BT, that's because people rush to BT files in massive waves and then forget them, but while they're fresh, they go fast. If people swarmed to ed2k files as quickly, the speed would be the same. After all, emule doesn't use (much) more overhead bandwidth than BT, so in both networks, downloadrate=uploadrate.
I think this is the right moment for making the switch.
Seeing that the USA spends $5Billion per month on the occupation of Iraq, I think we have very little grounds to call this a "pork barrel" project. These satellites will be undeniably useful to everyone in the world. Compared to other things that $2.1B buys you, this is a great deal.
Who will do the actual reading of all these books whose copyrights expired? And, under what terms will these reading performances be distributed?
Even if the text they read is public domain, the rights to the performance of the reading belong to the performer, and can be bought and sold if the performer chooses. He or she can also choose to release the performances into the public domain with a copyleft license. Obviously, this is what I would prefer. Then, the controversies of storage would be less pressing. There would need to be a fail-safe central archive of the recordings at maximum quality (maybe losslessly compressed, or not at all), and then the libraries would "loan out" compressed versions of these files in whatever format makes sense at the time. These days I'd say it's mp3; in the future, the format with the widest playback possibilities will hopefully be something better.
What I'm worried about is that the libraries will get commercial companies to do proprietary performances, so they will be much less free to distribute them according to the needs of their patrons. This is a real shame. For a long time I've wanted to have an open-source project to read certain classics in English whose copyright has expired. I've actually gotten started; see here. I think that if the libraries of the english-speaking world asked nicely and pooled their resources, they could get a whole bunch of the classics read by excellent performers, and released to the general public. I'm in the middle of listening to Ian McKellan reading The Odyssey and it's incredibly moving and entertaining. This isn't just for the visually impaired, you know.
Anyway, if libraries are going to do this, they have to do it right, because they won't get a chance to re-do it. I think they are setting themselves up for hardship if somebody else owns the rights to the stuff they distribute, even if it makes a few things easier at the start. So let's stop bickering about file formats and concentrate on the important stuff.
Why isn't everyone else doing this? It just seems so obviously reasonable.
Thank you for making me aware of this. I wasn't really out looking for a new remote, but now that I've seen this I might just find myself getting one. Since programmable remotes are available, why would anyone ever buy something else?
First of all, installation just got stuck and needed a hard reboot just because one of my disks is SATA. Gah, is SATA isn't exactly bleeding edge stuff... Once I figured out what was killing the installer, I disabled that disk in bios and the installer let me go on. I set up my internet connection and I asked it to fetch extra packages by FTP, since I wan't planning to install a whole lot at the start. Well sure, the servers are probably busy, but can you guess how the installer reacts to that? Yup, it just cuts out. The big grey box in the installer just gets empty, the pointer turns into the hourglass, and that's how it stays. That's just sloppy and disappointing.
So I finally just reformatted and stopped asking the installer to try getting stuff from servers, saying I only have this one disk. From there the setup went fine, but it left me with a system that has exactly one GUI application: the terminal. If they put in a graphical file manager, rpm manager and maybe Mozilla (they had plenty of space on the disk), I would have had more of a will to go on, but as it is, I think I'll just go to bed and overwrite this monstrosity with something else. That is, unless somebody can recommend a way to go on with the installation from the GUI.
SETI@Home isn't really a market, but it accomplishes something many people care about. A global nework of machines predicting the weather and outputting their results for all to see might gather lots of volunteers. And it might not, but the idea is certainly worth exploring, since the raw data is available.
There is good stuff on television, about 0.2% of it. But people on the internet are aware of this tiny sliver of quality, and make it very easy to get. Then I can watch it whenever I want, and without commercials.
The best stuff on television has these elaborate story arcs, making it almost necessary to watch the episodes in the correct order. There are three alternatives for doing this. One is to become a TV slave, dropping whatever you're doing every week at a specific time to catch the airing of the episode. Otherwise, you can wait for the DVD release, which might take years. Or, you can rely on the generosity of the people on the internet and download the episodes from them in the proper order. The last option is by far the most convenient. With BitTorrent and eMule, you just declare what you want, and the shows download much faster than any reasonable person is able to watch them. Can anything compare to this sort of convenience? Well, TV people had better figure something out. In my life, TV programming has become irrelevant, and I have a feeling that more and more people will feel the same way.
Ironically, I feel like this year, I'm in much better touch with what's going on in TV-land. I'm catching up with Six Feet Under, the new Battlestar Galactica, Drawn Together and the Daily Show, all stuff I wasn't watching last year. Funny thing is, last year I had cable. This year, I got rid of it and just hooked up my living room television to my bedroom computer, and set up a pretty slick way to control my computer from my living room with a wireless keyboard and mouse. Now the TV gets watched a whole lot more. How long will it be before many people have this sort of setup? Not long...
Well, read the appendix of the report, and specifically look at the graphs. They run perfectly parallel experiments with H2O and D2O and consistently get very different results. So if Pons "admitted" there's no extra effect from heavy water, he made a mistake. Why is that so hard to believe? We've now had 15 years to check it out, and the results are repeatable and the effect is pretty large. Of course, you might be right in your conclusion, but your reasons are either ignorant or stupid.
I don't know how that reads to you, but to me it sounds like they've been consistently observing this dramatic effect for 15 years and they can't explain it. I think this is exactly the right thing for scientists to muck around with. I'm not saying it's cold fusion, but it's something they can't explain. So they had better get cracking and explain it!
Or, should we really see this as Firefox embracing ActiveX in an attempt to try to crush Explorer faster? Will they extend on it with XUL? Or... is IE about to take over XUL? Wow, this really looks like a war again!
I wonder whether a well-rehearsed lie would show the same traces as telling the truth. I think the point is, you want to get your story down do much that you tell it automatically, without thinking, which is what the prefrontal cortex does. So to be a good liar you might need to "brainwash" yourself, but nothing in the article makes me think that's impossible.
Maybe not, but I know of one that can: My wireless optical mouse (and keyboard)!
Now I'm happy with my optical wired mouse. It's exactly the weight I want.
Now, specifically about the comments regarding Firefox: It would be monstrous to make a huge "back" button in Firefox, just because you click it more. By that reasoning, all buttons should be different size, proportionately to how likely they are to be clicked. That would be nuts! There are five buttons in Firefox. Making one of them large would mean either: the entire button bar must get fatter, or the button has to stick out over the page (might be kinda cool), or it would have to stck up into the menu bar (stupid), or it would stay the same size and the other buttons would shrink (stupid). Well, this is something he doesn't think of because this guy is obviously not much of a designer. Yeah, he can rattle off some "principles" of interface design, and they might be useful, but blindly following any principles, as this guy seems to do, will not generally lead to a good outcome. You also need to have taste.