It was distributed in the states too. I remember I a "preview" copy of one of the OS/2 versions, v3 sans Windows I believe. It came out in a red box whereas the version with WinOS2 was in a blue box.
Up until just last year I worked at a company that still had hundreds of OS/2 boxes running various telephony apps. I had an MS OS/2 v1.3 running until some time around year 2000. Versions 3 and 4 were quite reliable for telephony, I had multi-T1 voice response units with uptimes over two years.
I don't see what your link has to do with second channel broadcasting. You're talking about digital sub-channels, right?
The link talks about a UHF station that couldn't fund an upgrade to HDTV. That's not the same thing.
I am amazed at the FCC more and more every day. From censorship, to their new leader mentioning that he wants authority over satellite radio. They're refusal to require unbundled DSL, refusal to require shared access to cable lines while at the same time trying to foster VoIP. Then refusing to require subchannels on cable, subchannels they insisted on in the first place. Their decisions are all over the place and follow no apparent strategy.
The predials are actually a bad idea IMO. I was right next to a several car pileup on the highway the other day, instinctively I dialed *9. I guess I'm out of date since that number goes no where anymore. Call me crazy, but I had no idea 911 worked on cell phones now or that *9 had gone the way of the Motorola brick phones.
Not exactly a predial, but same type of thing. People should have the real number in their heads. A number that works on every phone.
If the blocks transferred are in a known size they could generate a block of random garbase that size and compute its hash. Store the block and the hash in a database. Repeat.
At some point they would have enough different hash values with garbage data that they could start injecting them into file transfers.
Now if the block size isn't fixed or there's more to the validity checking of the relevant p2p software than yea, they're probably full of it.
I would define a programmer as one who takes a thorough design and implements specific portions of it.
The software engineer, even if he or she writes code, is not doing that. The software engineer has to design, whether it's done in their head alone or whether it gets committed to paper.
Is that coding software engineer less of a software engineer by skipping over the design documentation stage? Perhaps. We are a profession that doesn't have strict rules. How to write a good design document is a massive question because I don't think we've figured it out yet.
If you're going to construct a building you know you need floors, walls, windows and such. You have to do a site plan, blue prints, environmental impact studies and such. Good design documentation, I think, would be more of a given.
Software ranges from games to scientific applications, distributed apps and so on. Can a cookie cutter approach work? Is software still advancing with such a pace that a more formal technique is still out of our grasp? Or are we at a point where patterns are emerging and can we can point to a design as a "typical" design?
I'm still taking CS classes after ten years in the business. The books my college uses present an assortment of different design techniques and various documents that go along with them. They do not present an absolute solution.
I dare say that I haven't seen much in the way of design documents in anything I do. A "design" to me, typically means a braindump committed to email. It's not too surprising either, I doubt many software engineers got into the business to write documents.
If people depended on those products that much then surely there's an opportunity for another company to move in and set up shop. In a free economy, holes like this should be filled by new ventures.. not by government intervention and beauracracy.
Look at the bankruptcy bill. Nothing could more blatantly tell the American public that our lawmakers are only concerned with the interests of large corporations and the ultra-wealthy.
Bankruptcy needed reform. Too many Americans run up multiple tens of thousands of dollars of debt with their precious credit cards and then default on everything. That only makes it worse for honest people trying to pay their way out of the hole they created.
This bankruptcy bill also helps control the Enronians. No longer will a corporate executive be able to buy a multi-million dollar mansion on prime real estate and then be able to exclude it from their assets because it's their "primary residence".
Yea, some of it is bad. Some people are hopelessly lost in the system, due to death of a partner, serious illness or injury, bad choice of college majors and such. I have to hope the courts will still rule fairly on their individual cases.
People can still file bankruptcy. That hasn't changed. The difference now is that if they have the means to pay down some of the debt then they must actually do it. It's simply insane that someone can just walk on their debts and then live high off their own income right after. That's an assault on everyone that actually pays their bills.
Now let's hope for usury laws. They could prevent the banks from driving people into these situations. Last year I was out of work six months. I didn't have much in savings because I too was digging out of a hole. After informing my credit card companies what did they do? They upped my interest rates to as much as 29%! Yea.. that's brilliant if I have no income, thanks guys. I didn't claim bankruptcy though, I leveraged equity in my house to clear most of it up. The rest I'm paying off as I can. It was a wake-up call for me, I closed all the accounts and haven't looked back. Only buying things I can afford is so liberating.
Seems more like a case of the BBC trying to publish an article with a buzzword in it.
A responsible journal would have gone on to say that any web site, not just a blog, could potentially attempt the same sort of behavior. This isn't anything new and has nothing much at all to do with blogging.
Actually.. why am I blaming the BBC? It made the front page here..
Hate to break it to you but a private investigator could watch you get into your car too. Satellites can do the same thing I'm sure. Do you carry a cell phone? If it's turned on then the cell towers can track you.
Again.. how does this harm you? You got into your car. It's now public record. So what?
The potential benefit to society outweighs your paranoia. With a camera there if someone torches your car we have a much better chance of catching the person. If someone gets mugged, or if a child is snatched.. we have something to go on. The fact that you don't like being watched has no merit against these benefits. Everyone out there could be watching you.
Let's say that my car has been repeatedly vandalized. I place a hidden camera on the corner of my house pointed at my driveway. You happen to walk by and get recorded.
How is this harmful to you? Your statement seems to contradict itself. You're claiming that in many cases a company installs cameras out of laziness. Yet you then say this footage would be monitored. Monitored by who? The company that's too lazy to secure their property in some 'better' way?
No one is monitoring your business. That's senseless paranoia. The cameras are placed to protect whatever they're pointed at.
Now I know that some communities have experimented with public surviellance. Even then though, they're monitoring the public as a whole for their safety. Their intent isn't to watch only you. If you don't like it then don't conduct whatever business it is that you wish to protect outside in the open.. in the public, where the public might see it.
I don't understand who you think is monitoring these feeds and what possible business of yours might be exposed that could cause you harm.
If a mall should be able to guard against shoplifters shouldn't property managers be able to guard against similar theft or vandalism to their properties?
Why is one okay and the other not?
If you're being recorded walking on a public sidewalk well, guess what? You're on a public sidewalk. You get no expectation of privacy there. Anyone else walking on the sidewalk can see you too.
Changing the ID doesn't seem like a good solution. The real problem is that this number should not be used for verification. I imagine the SSN was developed to track people's public retirement account. How it ended up being used for loans, mortgages and other things is beyond me. The big problem that needs to be addressed is how to we uniquely identify citizens and how do we verify that an individual is who they say they are? A nine digit number isn't the answer.
It seems somewhat amusing to me that I'm in a border state against Canada and soon I'll be required to have a passport with whatever whiz-bang technology in it (RFID and such) but to secure a homeloan I just need my SSN, some random paperwork and my John Hancock.
However, how does that benefit the open-source community or the author of the GPL software you are using.
Why do they have to benefit? Turn your statement around, how are they harmed? They aren't. I think I understand the good intent of this proposal but I don't agree with it. It's good for the computing industry as a whole if companies can pull from open software. The benefit potentially is to our economy and in keeping us all employed.
So long as companies are making improvements on open software there is the potential that the code could make it back to the public. If companies shy away from an insistance that they open their code (and I believe that is truly what this is about) then no one benefits. Not even the open source developers.
No need to do damage control unless video on portable devices actually becomes a money maker. Portable DVD players and TVs have existed for a while and they're not that popular. I'm not sure there's much potential for this either.
Well, I'm certainly not a lawyer. Destruction of evidence is probably not the right charge but I'm sure there are several which apply.
My arguement would be:
It is typical for web admins to retain log files.
If an admin were running a site with possible terroristic or otherwise illegal content and that site did not retain logs then it is likely the reason why there are no logs is that the admin was conscious of the site's content.
It could then be argued that the admin intentionally set up a site where criminals could have safe haven.
The only way I could see to defend against this is to show a logical reason why logging was disabled. Apache and IIS both log by default. Turning it off is a willfull act. Writing a cron job to purge those logs is a willfull act. Incompetance isn't a defense because you'd have to be partially competent to inhibit the logging.
Destruction of evidence? No, you're right. There must be a law that applies here though, the admin would be enabling criminal activity.
I hate when the brain makes an association like that. I've watched "Band of Brothers" several times and it wasn't until just recently I realized that one of the main characters is the main character on Office Space. Since then I can't immerse myself in the story because everytime he's on camera I have Office Space flashbacks.
The willfull, premeditated destruction of evidence is not very sound advice. If your actions as an admin hampers their investigation it's quite likely you would become one of the investigated, of a crime that can be readily proven (as in the scripts to destroy the logs or the config files preventing their creation).
The first articles I read about this "feature" said that it would not be incorporated on DirecTivo's. I assume they are bound by contract with DirecTV such that they can't screw around with the product too much. Makes me wonder what will happen when the contract expires and DirecTV moves away from Tivo.
How many other devices in your home have millions of transistors?
For all I know, wood might have a complex cellular structure. It wouldn't matter much to a carpenter. The number of transistors doesn't matter to a computer user either. The number of problems caused by a transistor error are probably quite small.
The FCC should not be able to regulate VoIP, because it does not use the airwaves.
Huh? Cable systems don't either, neither do landline phones.. They're in charge of communications, not just broadcasting.
As for limiting access.. is a double edged sword. If anyone can run a server and any computer zombie can do whatever it wants upstream it could drive the effective bandwidth way down for other users. OTOH, I agree that if you're paying for Internet you should get Internet, not some subset of the Internet that Comcast feels you're entitled to.
I could be wrong but I believe the phone companies are required to keep 911 available when existing phone service is disonnected. They aren't required to run a new line to anyone's house but once a line is established they have to maintain 911 access.
Slashdot Mirror
It was distributed in the states too. I remember I a "preview" copy of one of the OS/2 versions, v3 sans Windows I believe. It came out in a red box whereas the version with WinOS2 was in a blue box.
Up until just last year I worked at a company that still had hundreds of OS/2 boxes running various telephony apps. I had an MS OS/2 v1.3 running until some time around year 2000. Versions 3 and 4 were quite reliable for telephony, I had multi-T1 voice response units with uptimes over two years.
I don't see what your link has to do with second channel broadcasting. You're talking about digital sub-channels, right?
The link talks about a UHF station that couldn't fund an upgrade to HDTV. That's not the same thing.
I am amazed at the FCC more and more every day. From censorship, to their new leader mentioning that he wants authority over satellite radio. They're refusal to require unbundled DSL, refusal to require shared access to cable lines while at the same time trying to foster VoIP. Then refusing to require subchannels on cable, subchannels they insisted on in the first place. Their decisions are all over the place and follow no apparent strategy.
I believe the SJC struck that down if it's the same thing as the much touted "mandatory sentencing guidelines".
3 33 6-2005Jan12.html
See here:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A
I have the urge to scream.
Every digital rights topic ends up, at least on some level, as a debate over the meaning of theft and its use relative to intellectual property.
Move along, move along.
The predials are actually a bad idea IMO. I was right next to a several car pileup on the highway the other day, instinctively I dialed *9. I guess I'm out of date since that number goes no where anymore. Call me crazy, but I had no idea 911 worked on cell phones now or that *9 had gone the way of the Motorola brick phones.
Not exactly a predial, but same type of thing. People should have the real number in their heads. A number that works on every phone.
Why do you need to "find" a collision?
If the blocks transferred are in a known size they could generate a block of random garbase that size and compute its hash. Store the block and the hash in a database. Repeat.
At some point they would have enough different hash values with garbage data that they could start injecting them into file transfers.
Now if the block size isn't fixed or there's more to the validity checking of the relevant p2p software than yea, they're probably full of it.
I would define a programmer as one who takes a thorough design and implements specific portions of it.
The software engineer, even if he or she writes code, is not doing that. The software engineer has to design, whether it's done in their head alone or whether it gets committed to paper.
Is that coding software engineer less of a software engineer by skipping over the design documentation stage? Perhaps. We are a profession that doesn't have strict rules. How to write a good design document is a massive question because I don't think we've figured it out yet.
If you're going to construct a building you know you need floors, walls, windows and such. You have to do a site plan, blue prints, environmental impact studies and such. Good design documentation, I think, would be more of a given.
Software ranges from games to scientific applications, distributed apps and so on. Can a cookie cutter approach work? Is software still advancing with such a pace that a more formal technique is still out of our grasp? Or are we at a point where patterns are emerging and can we can point to a design as a "typical" design?
I'm still taking CS classes after ten years in the business. The books my college uses present an assortment of different design techniques and various documents that go along with them. They do not present an absolute solution.
I dare say that I haven't seen much in the way of design documents in anything I do. A "design" to me, typically means a braindump committed to email. It's not too surprising either, I doubt many software engineers got into the business to write documents.
If people depended on those products that much then surely there's an opportunity for another company to move in and set up shop. In a free economy, holes like this should be filled by new ventures.. not by government intervention and beauracracy.
Now imagine people browsing a large folder over a busy network.
Does anyone actually need a feature like this? It's eye candy for the sake of eye candy, same thing KDE has been doing.
Bankruptcy needed reform. Too many Americans run up multiple tens of thousands of dollars of debt with their precious credit cards and then default on everything. That only makes it worse for honest people trying to pay their way out of the hole they created.
This bankruptcy bill also helps control the Enronians. No longer will a corporate executive be able to buy a multi-million dollar mansion on prime real estate and then be able to exclude it from their assets because it's their "primary residence".
Yea, some of it is bad. Some people are hopelessly lost in the system, due to death of a partner, serious illness or injury, bad choice of college majors and such. I have to hope the courts will still rule fairly on their individual cases.
People can still file bankruptcy. That hasn't changed. The difference now is that if they have the means to pay down some of the debt then they must actually do it. It's simply insane that someone can just walk on their debts and then live high off their own income right after. That's an assault on everyone that actually pays their bills.
Now let's hope for usury laws. They could prevent the banks from driving people into these situations. Last year I was out of work six months. I didn't have much in savings because I too was digging out of a hole. After informing my credit card companies what did they do? They upped my interest rates to as much as 29%! Yea.. that's brilliant if I have no income, thanks guys. I didn't claim bankruptcy though, I leveraged equity in my house to clear most of it up. The rest I'm paying off as I can. It was a wake-up call for me, I closed all the accounts and haven't looked back. Only buying things I can afford is so liberating.
Seems more like a case of the BBC trying to publish an article with a buzzword in it.
A responsible journal would have gone on to say that any web site, not just a blog, could potentially attempt the same sort of behavior. This isn't anything new and has nothing much at all to do with blogging.
Actually.. why am I blaming the BBC? It made the front page here..
Hate to break it to you but a private investigator could watch you get into your car too. Satellites can do the same thing I'm sure. Do you carry a cell phone? If it's turned on then the cell towers can track you.
Again.. how does this harm you? You got into your car. It's now public record. So what?
The potential benefit to society outweighs your paranoia. With a camera there if someone torches your car we have a much better chance of catching the person. If someone gets mugged, or if a child is snatched.. we have something to go on. The fact that you don't like being watched has no merit against these benefits. Everyone out there could be watching you.
Let's say that my car has been repeatedly vandalized. I place a hidden camera on the corner of my house pointed at my driveway. You happen to walk by and get recorded.
How is this harmful to you? Your statement seems to contradict itself. You're claiming that in many cases a company installs cameras out of laziness. Yet you then say this footage would be monitored. Monitored by who? The company that's too lazy to secure their property in some 'better' way?
No one is monitoring your business. That's senseless paranoia. The cameras are placed to protect whatever they're pointed at.
Now I know that some communities have experimented with public surviellance. Even then though, they're monitoring the public as a whole for their safety. Their intent isn't to watch only you. If you don't like it then don't conduct whatever business it is that you wish to protect outside in the open.. in the public, where the public might see it.
I don't understand who you think is monitoring these feeds and what possible business of yours might be exposed that could cause you harm.
If a mall should be able to guard against shoplifters shouldn't property managers be able to guard against similar theft or vandalism to their properties?
Why is one okay and the other not?
If you're being recorded walking on a public sidewalk well, guess what? You're on a public sidewalk. You get no expectation of privacy there. Anyone else walking on the sidewalk can see you too.
Changing the ID doesn't seem like a good solution. The real problem is that this number should not be used for verification. I imagine the SSN was developed to track people's public retirement account. How it ended up being used for loans, mortgages and other things is beyond me. The big problem that needs to be addressed is how to we uniquely identify citizens and how do we verify that an individual is who they say they are? A nine digit number isn't the answer.
It seems somewhat amusing to me that I'm in a border state against Canada and soon I'll be required to have a passport with whatever whiz-bang technology in it (RFID and such) but to secure a homeloan I just need my SSN, some random paperwork and my John Hancock.
Why do they have to benefit? Turn your statement around, how are they harmed? They aren't. I think I understand the good intent of this proposal but I don't agree with it. It's good for the computing industry as a whole if companies can pull from open software. The benefit potentially is to our economy and in keeping us all employed.
So long as companies are making improvements on open software there is the potential that the code could make it back to the public. If companies shy away from an insistance that they open their code (and I believe that is truly what this is about) then no one benefits. Not even the open source developers.
No need to do damage control unless video on portable devices actually becomes a money maker. Portable DVD players and TVs have existed for a while and they're not that popular. I'm not sure there's much potential for this either.
Well, I'm certainly not a lawyer. Destruction of evidence is probably not the right charge but I'm sure there are several which apply.
My arguement would be:
It is typical for web admins to retain log files.
If an admin were running a site with possible terroristic or otherwise illegal content and that site did not retain logs then it is likely the reason why there are no logs is that the admin was conscious of the site's content.
It could then be argued that the admin intentionally set up a site where criminals could have safe haven.
The only way I could see to defend against this is to show a logical reason why logging was disabled. Apache and IIS both log by default. Turning it off is a willfull act. Writing a cron job to purge those logs is a willfull act. Incompetance isn't a defense because you'd have to be partially competent to inhibit the logging.
Destruction of evidence? No, you're right. There must be a law that applies here though, the admin would be enabling criminal activity.
I hate when the brain makes an association like that. I've watched "Band of Brothers" several times and it wasn't until just recently I realized that one of the main characters is the main character on Office Space. Since then I can't immerse myself in the story because everytime he's on camera I have Office Space flashbacks.
The willfull, premeditated destruction of evidence is not very sound advice. If your actions as an admin hampers their investigation it's quite likely you would become one of the investigated, of a crime that can be readily proven (as in the scripts to destroy the logs or the config files preventing their creation).
The first articles I read about this "feature" said that it would not be incorporated on DirecTivo's. I assume they are bound by contract with DirecTV such that they can't screw around with the product too much. Makes me wonder what will happen when the contract expires and DirecTV moves away from Tivo.
For all I know, wood might have a complex cellular structure. It wouldn't matter much to a carpenter. The number of transistors doesn't matter to a computer user either. The number of problems caused by a transistor error are probably quite small.
Huh? Cable systems don't either, neither do landline phones.. They're in charge of communications, not just broadcasting.
As for limiting access.. is a double edged sword. If anyone can run a server and any computer zombie can do whatever it wants upstream it could drive the effective bandwidth way down for other users. OTOH, I agree that if you're paying for Internet you should get Internet, not some subset of the Internet that Comcast feels you're entitled to.
I could be wrong but I believe the phone companies are required to keep 911 available when existing phone service is disonnected. They aren't required to run a new line to anyone's house but once a line is established they have to maintain 911 access.
I don't know if that's federal or state or what.