I found a bug in the Ultrix C compiler. I had an implementation of DES that I had written for my security class that used bitfields. When I tried to compile it under Ultrix, the compiler went into an infinite loop. The code compiled fine with every other compiler I could find (cc on our Sun 3 boxes and gcc on several platforms).
What we need is a good P2P system for distributing software. Something designed for distributing software packages. I'm not sure how well this would work for the example in the question, but imagine the following system:
The web site that offers the software would use a link like:
p2p://www.mysite.org/p2p/package7.xml
The above file would be an XML file describing a given package. It would be downloaded using http, but then automatically go and start using the resulting file to search for and download the actual package. The XML file would give the MD5 sum for the entire package, as well as for each 1MB chunk. A P2P network would be used to search for and download chunks based on their MD5 sum. The client would verify the sums and reconstruct the package.
Now all you need to do is get some site to share some of your more popular files.
The $1 bill vs. the $1 coin has nothing to do with counterfeiting. People don't bother with counterfeiting $1, $2, or $5 bills for the most part. The $20 is the most common target domestically, while the $100 is the most common target internationally.
The $1 bill still exists for two reasons. First, despite having had a $1 coin in circulation at the same time for a century or so (probably longer), shopkeepers prefer paper to coins, so while consumers may spend them, they don't get them in change. Second, the government has been hesitant to pull the $1 bill out of circulation, both for political reasons and due to fear that it may have a psychological inflationary impact.
Security, not differentiation
on
Greenbacks No More
·
· Score: 3, Informative
The changes are not there to help people differentiate between the different denominations, they're there to make it harder to counterfeit the bills. They've even said that they're keeping the same look and feel, so the changes won't be that dramatic. They're even trying to make them backwards-compatible with vending machines.
They have a nice graph, but no scale. I suppose you could do some careful pixel analysis of the graph to generate percentages, but it's a shame they don't list them.
Interestingly, I see "Other" has been steadily rising since it bottomed out in January, and has now surpassed Netscape 4. I would love to be able to click on that chart and see a detailed list of the percentages, and what "other" is composed of. Hopefully we'll see Mozilla get its own line on the graph soon.
It would also be nice to see a breakdown on a per-OS basis. I wonder how many people are running Internet Explorer on Linux? (Seriously, that would indicate what portion of non-IE users hack the browser tag to make web sites happy.)
That's for May. Of course, it's all at the Zeitgeist, as linked in other responses. I don't blame you for not knowing about it, though; I've tried to find it from Google's web page, but couldn't until I searched for it (using Google, of course).
The significance here is that The Open Group's official X11 codebase will incorporate Xinerama code from XFree86. While X11 has incorporated bug fixes, this is the first time they've taken significant non-bug-fix code from XFree86.
Personally, I don't see this as too big of a deal. The Open Group hasn't done any real development since they shut down the Cambridge RI four years ago and sold off the Grenoble RI. (I was employed at the Cambridge Research Institute at the time.) Apparently they're going to do another release of X, but since they don't have a development team, any new code has to come from outside.
Traditional hearing aids are simply microphones and speakers to make the noise louder. They work fine for some people, but this type of technology bypasses the eardrum altogether, hinting at the possibility of sending sound to some who otherwise wouldn't be able to hear at all.
I don't know much about this or related technologies. Is there any substance to my gussing above?
I'm surprised that McAfee's consultant (they admit that they received the virus from the author; they didn't deny hiring him) didn't create a real JPEG virus. It shouldn't be too difficult; just select an application that is widely-used to view image files, and then look for a buffer-overflow bug that can be exploited with a non-standard file.
Suppose you found a bug in IE that let you execute code packaged in a JPEG. With some clever coding, it would still display normally, but it would alter all other JPEGs on the system. When a web developer gets infected, his web site will spread the virus. It could spread quite widely.
This is simply a variation on security through obscurity. Make sure the operating system and software it runs are so old that current hacking tools won't work on it. Sure, that will stop a bunch of script kiddies. It's just like running MacOS will make you immune to most viruses.
Without the script kiddies, you still have to worry about serious crack attempts. By using antique software, it is probably relatively easy to do some research and find security vulnerabilities.
I've seen two movies with digital projectors. One was in Paramus, NJ several years ago, and the picture was absolutely perfect. The other was in Framingham, MA last month, and the picture was poor. You could see the pixels in some scenes, and it was obvious in the closing credits. The image just didn't feel as sharp as I would have expected.
Apparently the newer and cheaper digital projectors use a resolution slightly lower than that of HDTV (I'm sure someone will post the resolution). That's just not good enough.
So stick with film until the digital resolution is good enough that you won't have people complaining. I, for one, will not be going to a digital theater again anytime soon.
I doubt that Apple will continue to manufacture the old-style iMac. Most likely, they're only selling off their inventory now, and now that that's running low, they're making this box available. People who want DVD can go for the new iMac.
I've heard that they check for signal leakage. If you have the wrong combination of splitters, signal amplifiers, and unshielded cables, then you're actually broadcasting the cable signal. Supposedly the cable company sends out vans to check that this leakage is within tollerance. In some cases, they will ask to replace some of your internal wiring so as to reduce leakage. Supposedly they are required by the FCC to keep the leakage under a certain level. (I read it on the Internet, so it must be true.)
I've also heard that you can play the same game and use a high-gain antena to steal cable by capturing the leaking signal from your neighbor's house. I don't know how well that works, though in theory it is possible.
It's a trivial matter to instead of looking for leakage beyond their regular tollerance level to look for any leakage whatsoever from non-subscribers.
First, they normally install a filter on such lines that blocks the analog signals, so in many cases, it won't work.
Second, they can detect the signal leakage and see that you're receiving the signal. Considering that it's simply a matter of pointing an antena at your house from a van, and they have a list of who are Internet-only subscribers, it's not hard for them to check.
Using unauthorized cable signals simply isn't worth the risk.
Despite what the article says, these players will either owe royalties, or they won't be able to play the standard DVD media.
The royalties aren't for the use of the DVD trademark (well, the bulk of them, anyway). They're for the use of patents.
Now if they're really clever, they might be able to implement alternative techniques that, while producing the same results, don't use the means that the patents cover. Considering the number of DVD patents involved, this seems unlikely. (Sure, you could avoid the Macrovision and region-coding patents easily enough--don't include those "features.")
What does "the next level" mean? Does that mean that mean that my fifth level fighter will have 35,001 experience points with the new technology? Does it mean my cube will be moved upstairs? Does it mean the little bubble will sit in the middle of the glass?
That phrase should ring Dilbert-esque alarm bells. If there were awards for the most over-used marketing phrases, "the next level" would be due to win the grand prize this year.
Did you know that there are about 788,000 hits on Google for that phrase?
I'm sorry, but I have a bit of trouble taking any article seriously that uses that sort of marketing-speak.
Considering that it is now illegal in many places to throw away used computers due to the various toxic components (lead in the CRTs and such), a trade-in program is a great way of handling the problem.
Sure, some people will pay $50 or so to have the computer recycled, but most will just leave it in the attic.
Now the question is what happens to the old computers. Will Apple recycle them, or will they refurbish them and send them off to the Third World?
If the RIAA gets royalty rates that effectively shut down webcasts of music it controls, then that would be good news for anyone wanting to webcast independent or unsigned artists. Sure, you could set up an Internet radio station that only plays non-RIAA music, but you wouldn't get much attention with all the other stuff there.
Of course, if people start listening to non-RIAA stuff online, the RIAA will rethink their royalty system.
Isn't the use of copyrighted works a matter of getting permission from the rights holder? Can't the rights holder insist on whatever royalty payment system he feels is appropriate?
It may not be very nice, but if the RIAA wants to keep its music from being webcast, I don't see why the government should stop them. If they want to charge royalty rates that effectively do the same thing, that's their bad business decision.
I remember seeing TPM in New Jersey on a digital projector, and it was incredible--the best picture I've ever seen.
Last night I saw ATotC in Framingham, MA in the digital theater, and it just wasn't as good as I would expect from analog. Sure, there was no bouncing in the picture, but there was pixelization. It was really obvious during the credits, and was distracting in some of the other scenes.
I'm not sure what the processes involved were, but clearly digital can produce an outstanding picture, but due to the costs involved, they aren't using the technology necessary to produce the best picture possible.
Slashdot Mirror
Personally, I'm addicted to using three mouse buttons. The middle button opens links in new windows, pastes the copy buffer, and so forth.
Do any laptops come with three mouse buttons?
Are the Apple laptops stuck with only one button like their desktop mice?
I found a bug in the Ultrix C compiler. I had an implementation of DES that I had written for my security class that used bitfields. When I tried to compile it under Ultrix, the compiler went into an infinite loop. The code compiled fine with every other compiler I could find (cc on our Sun 3 boxes and gcc on several platforms).
What we need is a good P2P system for distributing software. Something designed for distributing software packages. I'm not sure how well this would work for the example in the question, but imagine the following system:
The web site that offers the software would use a link like:
p2p://www.mysite.org/p2p/package7.xml
The above file would be an XML file describing a given package. It would be downloaded using http, but then automatically go and start using the resulting file to search for and download the actual package. The XML file would give the MD5 sum for the entire package, as well as for each 1MB chunk. A P2P network would be used to search for and download chunks based on their MD5 sum. The client would verify the sums and reconstruct the package.
Now all you need to do is get some site to share some of your more popular files.
Look at where mirrors for things like Linux distributions are found. Many exist at .edu sites. Perhaps you could find a University to help you out.
The $1 bill vs. the $1 coin has nothing to do with counterfeiting. People don't bother with counterfeiting $1, $2, or $5 bills for the most part. The $20 is the most common target domestically, while the $100 is the most common target internationally.
The $1 bill still exists for two reasons. First, despite having had a $1 coin in circulation at the same time for a century or so (probably longer), shopkeepers prefer paper to coins, so while consumers may spend them, they don't get them in change. Second, the government has been hesitant to pull the $1 bill out of circulation, both for political reasons and due to fear that it may have a psychological inflationary impact.
The changes are not there to help people differentiate between the different denominations, they're there to make it harder to counterfeit the bills. They've even said that they're keeping the same look and feel, so the changes won't be that dramatic. They're even trying to make them backwards-compatible with vending machines.
They have a nice graph, but no scale. I suppose you could do some careful pixel analysis of the graph to generate percentages, but it's a shame they don't list them.
Interestingly, I see "Other" has been steadily rising since it bottomed out in January, and has now surpassed Netscape 4. I would love to be able to click on that chart and see a detailed list of the percentages, and what "other" is composed of. Hopefully we'll see Mozilla get its own line on the graph soon.
It would also be nice to see a breakdown on a per-OS basis. I wonder how many people are running Internet Explorer on Linux? (Seriously, that would indicate what portion of non-IE users hack the browser tag to make web sites happy.)
That's for May. Of course, it's all at the Zeitgeist, as linked in other responses. I don't blame you for not knowing about it, though; I've tried to find it from Google's web page, but couldn't until I searched for it (using Google, of course).
The significance here is that The Open Group's official X11 codebase will incorporate Xinerama code from XFree86. While X11 has incorporated bug fixes, this is the first time they've taken significant non-bug-fix code from XFree86.
Personally, I don't see this as too big of a deal. The Open Group hasn't done any real development since they shut down the Cambridge RI four years ago and sold off the Grenoble RI. (I was employed at the Cambridge Research Institute at the time.) Apparently they're going to do another release of X, but since they don't have a development team, any new code has to come from outside.
So now we can see if the trick they played on Kent in Real Genius will really work.
Traditional hearing aids are simply microphones and speakers to make the noise louder. They work fine for some people, but this type of technology bypasses the eardrum altogether, hinting at the possibility of sending sound to some who otherwise wouldn't be able to hear at all.
I don't know much about this or related technologies. Is there any substance to my gussing above?
I'm surprised that McAfee's consultant (they admit that they received the virus from the author; they didn't deny hiring him) didn't create a real JPEG virus. It shouldn't be too difficult; just select an application that is widely-used to view image files, and then look for a buffer-overflow bug that can be exploited with a non-standard file.
Suppose you found a bug in IE that let you execute code packaged in a JPEG. With some clever coding, it would still display normally, but it would alter all other JPEGs on the system. When a web developer gets infected, his web site will spread the virus. It could spread quite widely.
This is simply a variation on security through obscurity. Make sure the operating system and software it runs are so old that current hacking tools won't work on it. Sure, that will stop a bunch of script kiddies. It's just like running MacOS will make you immune to most viruses.
Without the script kiddies, you still have to worry about serious crack attempts. By using antique software, it is probably relatively easy to do some research and find security vulnerabilities.
I've seen two movies with digital projectors. One was in Paramus, NJ several years ago, and the picture was absolutely perfect. The other was in Framingham, MA last month, and the picture was poor. You could see the pixels in some scenes, and it was obvious in the closing credits. The image just didn't feel as sharp as I would have expected.
Apparently the newer and cheaper digital projectors use a resolution slightly lower than that of HDTV (I'm sure someone will post the resolution). That's just not good enough.
So stick with film until the digital resolution is good enough that you won't have people complaining. I, for one, will not be going to a digital theater again anytime soon.
I doubt that Apple will continue to manufacture the old-style iMac. Most likely, they're only selling off their inventory now, and now that that's running low, they're making this box available. People who want DVD can go for the new iMac.
I've heard that they check for signal leakage. If you have the wrong combination of splitters, signal amplifiers, and unshielded cables, then you're actually broadcasting the cable signal. Supposedly the cable company sends out vans to check that this leakage is within tollerance. In some cases, they will ask to replace some of your internal wiring so as to reduce leakage. Supposedly they are required by the FCC to keep the leakage under a certain level. (I read it on the Internet, so it must be true.)
I've also heard that you can play the same game and use a high-gain antena to steal cable by capturing the leaking signal from your neighbor's house. I don't know how well that works, though in theory it is possible.
It's a trivial matter to instead of looking for leakage beyond their regular tollerance level to look for any leakage whatsoever from non-subscribers.
This is easy for the cable companies to catch.
First, they normally install a filter on such lines that blocks the analog signals, so in many cases, it won't work.
Second, they can detect the signal leakage and see that you're receiving the signal. Considering that it's simply a matter of pointing an antena at your house from a van, and they have a list of who are Internet-only subscribers, it's not hard for them to check.
Using unauthorized cable signals simply isn't worth the risk.
Despite what the article says, these players will either owe royalties, or they won't be able to play the standard DVD media.
The royalties aren't for the use of the DVD trademark (well, the bulk of them, anyway). They're for the use of patents.
Now if they're really clever, they might be able to implement alternative techniques that, while producing the same results, don't use the means that the patents cover. Considering the number of DVD patents involved, this seems unlikely. (Sure, you could avoid the Macrovision and region-coding patents easily enough--don't include those "features.")
What does "the next level" mean? Does that mean that mean that my fifth level fighter will have 35,001 experience points with the new technology? Does it mean my cube will be moved upstairs? Does it mean the little bubble will sit in the middle of the glass?
That phrase should ring Dilbert-esque alarm bells. If there were awards for the most over-used marketing phrases, "the next level" would be due to win the grand prize this year.
Did you know that there are about 788,000 hits on Google for that phrase?
I'm sorry, but I have a bit of trouble taking any article seriously that uses that sort of marketing-speak.
Considering that it is now illegal in many places to throw away used computers due to the various toxic components (lead in the CRTs and such), a trade-in program is a great way of handling the problem.
Sure, some people will pay $50 or so to have the computer recycled, but most will just leave it in the attic.
Now the question is what happens to the old computers. Will Apple recycle them, or will they refurbish them and send them off to the Third World?
This is based on Mozilla 1.0 Release Candidate 2, so it's pretty current.
There are three hits at google. It looks like a typical urban legend.
They changed the name to KFC because fried foods became associated with being unhealthy.
If the RIAA gets royalty rates that effectively shut down webcasts of music it controls, then that would be good news for anyone wanting to webcast independent or unsigned artists. Sure, you could set up an Internet radio station that only plays non-RIAA music, but you wouldn't get much attention with all the other stuff there.
Of course, if people start listening to non-RIAA stuff online, the RIAA will rethink their royalty system.
Isn't the use of copyrighted works a matter of getting permission from the rights holder? Can't the rights holder insist on whatever royalty payment system he feels is appropriate?
It may not be very nice, but if the RIAA wants to keep its music from being webcast, I don't see why the government should stop them. If they want to charge royalty rates that effectively do the same thing, that's their bad business decision.
So why is the Copyright Office involved?
I remember seeing TPM in New Jersey on a digital projector, and it was incredible--the best picture I've ever seen.
Last night I saw ATotC in Framingham, MA in the digital theater, and it just wasn't as good as I would expect from analog. Sure, there was no bouncing in the picture, but there was pixelization. It was really obvious during the credits, and was distracting in some of the other scenes.
I'm not sure what the processes involved were, but clearly digital can produce an outstanding picture, but due to the costs involved, they aren't using the technology necessary to produce the best picture possible.