Is it too hard to use the acronym PBX in the slashdot story? I'm tired of stories where either you have to visit the links, or already have an interest in the item in question (at which point, by the time it gets to Slashdot you've probably heard of the news item already.)While I agree to some respect, I didn't even notice the article didn't mention PBX -- I see Asterisk and just think PBX.
That being said, most of the developers use Eclipse as their development IDE, and I'm sure we are using more open source tools than they realize.
Yep. What can you do? Not much without looking like a rabid free software / Linux /... advocate.
I get the distinct impression that to most folks I deal with think open source exists on Linux and nowhere else. If they use Windows or a propriatory *nix, they can't be using open source!
I've had people tell me -- directly -- that they don't trust open source to be used on the current project. When I tell them that the core app is running under not one but 3 open sourc systems, they are shocked.
They know Apache, they know Tomcat, they know MySQL, but a good portion of these same people don't know that each of these are open source.
Maybe this will get rid of licensing models that are 'per cpu'. I've never understood the logic in charging per CPU, anyone care to explain? One computer, one license. Or even better, no licenses.
Where do you draw the boarders between one 'computer' and another?
If the licence were based on a per-metal-box basis, some clever folks would buy systems that are really clusters but are contained in a single box. Good for them, though it causes problems if you are the seller and supporter of the sofware.
I talked at length with that guy from the Toqueville institute....
... Just like how some people can't possibly understand how a piston engine works, some people aren't cut out to grok OS kernels.
The problem was, you didn't listen to him. If you did, you would have heard him clearly say;
"I'm a PR agent. I've been paid to take a position and I am glad to suck up your time as that's what I am paid to do. I get bonus points by looking somewhat reasonable while you loose your composure in an attempt to convince me of something that I have no personal stake in beyond a paycheck."
I was replying to "HDCP requried by DVD spec," which you can find by clicking the "parent" link below my post.
OK. Then, why did your subject say; Re:Studios don't lose money because someone copies? Very confusing.
I honestly don't know how the DVD creators make their DVDs; I only know that there is a huge black market here in NYC for illegally copied DVDs.
They don't break the consumer-grade copy protection, they just copy the raw data or transcode (look it up if interested) it so it fits on single layer consumer grade media. If they don't, they are morons. (Then again, they are blatently stealing someone else's property...so maybe they are morons.)
One important rule of security: Lack of physical security means lack of assurance of any security. Meaning: If someone can touch it, you have lost certianty that it will continue to be secure.
"Content protection capability is recommended..... An HDMI compliant Source should protect all of the protected audiovisual data."
Doesn't sound like "obligatory" to me.
Ever worked on a contract where the requirements are spelled out? I'm betting you haven't.
The word "should" is implied everywhere. The word "should" means "will do this or will violate the contract" not "may if you want".
As for "recommended", it means what it says, yet "should" takes it away since if you don't follow the recommendation, you've broken the relationship and liked snubbed kids they will take the ball and go home. If you want to play, you have to follow the rules of the ball owner in this case.
There's a hole in your argument. I agree that most people don't want to buy shit... but studios *do* lose money from black-market DVDs. In that light, copy protection makes more sense.
Who are you responding to? I don't see the parent thread.
That said, how do the black-market DVD creators create the DVDs they sell?
I don't quite get why people get upset about DVDs getting released multiple times. When you bought the DVD initially, were you happy with it? If not, why did you buy it? Did you feel like you must have the latest greatest? When the manufacturer of your car releases an updated version, do you equally get upset?
Quality isn't an issue for most folks. It's the right to use what you've already paid for. This gets back to the old sold vs. licenced issue.
If the movie was licenced, making a copy for personal use and backup is legitimate.
If the movie was sold, telling the buyer how they can use it is not permitted; ownership has been transfered.
For me, comming from a commercial software background, I take the licence angle as legitmate. Any copy protection is an annoyance and abuses the relationship between copyright holder and licencee (me in this case). Thus, it's not only OK to break copy protection it is a duity if I want to secure my personal rights.
I do have copies of movies on DVD that I have owned on VHS. For example the VHS version of Star Wars where Han shoots first. I do not posess any movies or audio CDs that I do not have a licence for. One of my Monty Python's Flying Circus DVDs was useless (disk 13 of 14 was duped 2x...no disk 14). Dowloaded that one.
I realize that I am in the minority and that most people will copy without compensation any DVD they have or download it on a whim.
Let's hope that they do, though if the layout of this desktop is any indication, it looks like a transparency skin for Windows XP and little more.
I wonder how many of the remaining features actually are going to make any difference this time round? Will Windows die-hards have something to brag about when the version one past Longhorn comes out...hard to tell. 8 ball says 'Try again later'.
Nope. Can't say I've stressed it too much, though I trust it enough to use on primary data for a specific project. Backing it up is simple; either copy the data from the mounted drive file or unmount it and backup the file itself.
The one thing I want to check (but haven't) is if a volume encrypted with TrueCrypt can be decrypted with any other tool that has the same encryption scheme. (Does the file decrypt and does it appear as a logical drive image?)
If that is the case, it would be a handy way of transfering data securly between Windows and non-Windows systems.
The idea that SciFi can be well-written and produced with some care is hard for many people to accept these days,
Current box office top 10;
Fantastic Four
War of the Worlds
Batman Begins
Dark Water
Mr. and Mrs. Smith
Herbie: Fully Loaded
Bewitched
Madagascar
Rebound
Star Wars: Episode III -- Revenge of the Sith
The Longest Yard
Cinderella Man
I'd say that fantasy wins 100% of the time this week, with quite a bit of 'sci-fi' thrown in to the mix as flavoring. No other group is a clear winner...unless you count comics and remakes of old movies/shows.
TrueCrypt is fantastic. It mounts encrypted volumes as drive letters, though, and has the Windows limitation of not being able to mount at arbitrary locations on arbitrary file systems; if you want your user data to be encrypted, you have to configure everyone's directory to be encrypted.
Junctions/hard~soft-links may not work (tend to be a PITA under Windows, so I haven't tried with TrueCrypt).
Scanning tunnelling microscopes deal with scanning and er...tunneling. IBM used one to move atoms to spell IBM; they did not create STM with this intent. The tech STMs are bases on is a refinement of an earlier microscope from the late 60s - early 70s.
Too bad it's only for Win98 and higher and that Internet Explorer is needed. Wonder who made that bone-headed decision.
Works on Linux almost perfectly...just can't read the online help (Windows browser -- NOT IE -- is needed). Everything else including photo editing is spiffy. For the browser, it does ask for a Mozilla plugin.
IPv6 has site local and link local IP addresses. I am sure that is what most organizations would use rather than publicly routable IP addresses for the vast majority of their machines.
I've seen 3 sites where a company running the facility uses public IP addresses because of ease of use. The company has a large chunk of IPs from years ago and sees no reason not to use them for all client systems. The company is not well known to the general public, though was spun off from a well known company.
I attempted to change this at one facility first by requesting that the admin look at alternatives. The admin laughed at me. I filed a more formal document and he is not laughing, though I doubt that anything has changed.
When I was there last, the network allowed any system behind the firewall to connect to any other system including a check printing machine that daily prints $1m USD. The facility has been investigated by the FBI and site officials have been fired in the past for lax security and failure to catch breaches of security.
The details of some of this have been published in a regional newspaper, so I am not giving away anything by mentioning this. That said, I feel that it would be improper to disclose the name of the company and the site location(s) because of the remaining details that are not public knowledge.
Repeat after me "NAT is not a firewall...NAT is not a firewall"
...and firewalls aren't the end all to security. (Thus, the sig.)
NAT is a capability of routers. It's not the only capability of routers, nor is it a necessary feature to enable when configuring them. (I'm talking about a full-featured router and other related devices, not a plug-and-go untweaked home model.)
...all desktops in the US Federal Government will have unique IPs, making it even easier for the bad guys to exploit a machine many layers deep in a network. After all, why secure the routers when your department managers just keep complaining that they can't connect from home?
Windows 2000/XP has a TON of default listening services, most of which have been exploited over the years by various worms. Only way to turn most of these "off" (other than to render your system unusable) is to run a software firewall, Microsoft's or 3rd party. They're turned on and listening for "convenience", I imagine. I will admit that in a corporate environment it's handy as hell to be able to admin just about anything on a box without doing a thing. Why the hell these were left on for home users is beyond me.
That the ports are open is not the issue. It's that the software listening on those ports is unsecure -- that's the problem.
Microsoft is not at fault for having those services enabled, though it is a sloppy default. They are to blaim for doing such a crappy job with such an obvious potential soft spot.
Have you considered doing a bulk reinstall and wipe out of known bad files? (Ex: Boot from a CD or external drive and run a search and replace on known files along with a malware and virus scan?) You could also inject the malware removal/detection software onto the machines as a part of the boot process. It's a bear to set up, and you have to know your client's machines, though it does save quite a bit of time troubleshooting. (Note I'm not recommending booting using safe mode as that is often compromised and can't be trusted.)
I love knoppix and all, but when was the last time you popped it into someone else's computer (especialy one at work or school if your not IT/fixing it) and didn't get your head bitten off.
Slashdot Mirror
Is it too hard to use the acronym PBX in the slashdot story? I'm tired of stories where either you have to visit the links, or already have an interest in the item in question (at which point, by the time it gets to Slashdot you've probably heard of the news item already.) While I agree to some respect, I didn't even notice the article didn't mention PBX -- I see Asterisk and just think PBX.
Yep. What can you do? Not much without looking like a rabid free software / Linux / ... advocate.
I get the distinct impression that to most folks I deal with think open source exists on Linux and nowhere else. If they use Windows or a propriatory *nix, they can't be using open source!
They know Apache, they know Tomcat, they know MySQL, but a good portion of these same people don't know that each of these are open source.
Where do you draw the boarders between one 'computer' and another?
If the licence were based on a per-metal-box basis, some clever folks would buy systems that are really clusters but are contained in a single box. Good for them, though it causes problems if you are the seller and supporter of the sofware.
The problem was, you didn't listen to him. If you did, you would have heard him clearly say;
"I'm a PR agent. I've been paid to take a position and I am glad to suck up your time as that's what I am paid to do. I get bonus points by looking somewhat reasonable while you loose your composure in an attempt to convince me of something that I have no personal stake in beyond a paycheck."OK. Then, why did your subject say; Re:Studios don't lose money because someone copies? Very confusing.
I honestly don't know how the DVD creators make their DVDs; I only know that there is a huge black market here in NYC for illegally copied DVDs.
They don't break the consumer-grade copy protection, they just copy the raw data or transcode (look it up if interested) it so it fits on single layer consumer grade media. If they don't, they are morons. (Then again, they are blatently stealing someone else's property...so maybe they are morons.)
One important rule of security: Lack of physical security means lack of assurance of any security. Meaning: If someone can touch it, you have lost certianty that it will continue to be secure.
Doesn't sound like "obligatory" to me.
Ever worked on a contract where the requirements are spelled out? I'm betting you haven't.
The word "should" is implied everywhere. The word "should" means "will do this or will violate the contract" not "may if you want".
As for "recommended", it means what it says, yet "should" takes it away since if you don't follow the recommendation, you've broken the relationship and liked snubbed kids they will take the ball and go home. If you want to play, you have to follow the rules of the ball owner in this case.
Who are you responding to? I don't see the parent thread.
That said, how do the black-market DVD creators create the DVDs they sell?
Quality isn't an issue for most folks. It's the right to use what you've already paid for. This gets back to the old sold vs. licenced issue.
If the movie was licenced, making a copy for personal use and backup is legitimate.
If the movie was sold, telling the buyer how they can use it is not permitted; ownership has been transfered.
For me, comming from a commercial software background, I take the licence angle as legitmate. Any copy protection is an annoyance and abuses the relationship between copyright holder and licencee (me in this case). Thus, it's not only OK to break copy protection it is a duity if I want to secure my personal rights.
I do have copies of movies on DVD that I have owned on VHS. For example the VHS version of Star Wars where Han shoots first. I do not posess any movies or audio CDs that I do not have a licence for. One of my Monty Python's Flying Circus DVDs was useless (disk 13 of 14 was duped 2x...no disk 14). Dowloaded that one.
I realize that I am in the minority and that most people will copy without compensation any DVD they have or download it on a whim.
Let's hope that they do, though if the layout of this desktop is any indication, it looks like a transparency skin for Windows XP and little more.
I wonder how many of the remaining features actually are going to make any difference this time round? Will Windows die-hards have something to brag about when the version one past Longhorn comes out...hard to tell. 8 ball says 'Try again later'.
The one thing I want to check (but haven't) is if a volume encrypted with TrueCrypt can be decrypted with any other tool that has the same encryption scheme. (Does the file decrypt and does it appear as a logical drive image?)
If that is the case, it would be a handy way of transfering data securly between Windows and non-Windows systems.
...or, er, top 12.
Current box office top 10;
I'd say that fantasy wins 100% of the time this week, with quite a bit of 'sci-fi' thrown in to the mix as flavoring. No other group is a clear winner...unless you count comics and remakes of old movies/shows.
Junctions/hard~soft-links may not work (tend to be a PITA under Windows, so I haven't tried with TrueCrypt).
Scanning tunnelling microscopes deal with scanning and er...tunneling. IBM used one to move atoms to spell IBM; they did not create STM with this intent. The tech STMs are bases on is a refinement of an earlier microscope from the late 60s - early 70s.
Works on Linux almost perfectly...just can't read the online help (Windows browser -- NOT IE -- is needed). Everything else including photo editing is spiffy. For the browser, it does ask for a Mozilla plugin.
I've seen 3 sites where a company running the facility uses public IP addresses because of ease of use. The company has a large chunk of IPs from years ago and sees no reason not to use them for all client systems. The company is not well known to the general public, though was spun off from a well known company.
I attempted to change this at one facility first by requesting that the admin look at alternatives. The admin laughed at me. I filed a more formal document and he is not laughing, though I doubt that anything has changed.
When I was there last, the network allowed any system behind the firewall to connect to any other system including a check printing machine that daily prints $1m USD. The facility has been investigated by the FBI and site officials have been fired in the past for lax security and failure to catch breaches of security.
The details of some of this have been published in a regional newspaper, so I am not giving away anything by mentioning this. That said, I feel that it would be improper to disclose the name of the company and the site location(s) because of the remaining details that are not public knowledge.
...and firewalls aren't the end all to security. (Thus, the sig.)
NAT is a capability of routers. It's not the only capability of routers, nor is it a necessary feature to enable when configuring them. (I'm talking about a full-featured router and other related devices, not a plug-and-go untweaked home model.)
...all desktops in the US Federal Government will have unique IPs, making it even easier for the bad guys to exploit a machine many layers deep in a network. After all, why secure the routers when your department managers just keep complaining that they can't connect from home?
That the ports are open is not the issue. It's that the software listening on those ports is unsecure -- that's the problem.
Microsoft is not at fault for having those services enabled, though it is a sloppy default. They are to blaim for doing such a crappy job with such an obvious potential soft spot.
Have you considered doing a bulk reinstall and wipe out of known bad files? (Ex: Boot from a CD or external drive and run a search and replace on known files along with a malware and virus scan?) You could also inject the malware removal/detection software onto the machines as a part of the boot process. It's a bear to set up, and you have to know your client's machines, though it does save quite a bit of time troubleshooting. (Note I'm not recommending booting using safe mode as that is often compromised and can't be trusted.)
I've never had a problem.
...that is all.
I just fired it up under Wine ( 20050524 ) and it seems to work. Haven't registered, so all I get is the intro screen.
OK...let's do the math... 1. Buy 3 250GB EIDE or SATA HD's very cheaply. [pricewatch.com]
(looks up prices) $98.00 * 3 = $294.00.
Reminds me of a friend who keeps insisting that he can build a full-sized house for $10,000.00 if he only had the land.