I mean, they aren't marketing it as such. You're not supposed to do your taxes on it, you're not going to program a QuakeIII mod on it, you won't be doing AV stuff on it...
It's meant as an entertainment device first, and a computational device second, even though there are definite overlaps.
The HD is not necessarily for the games; the downloaded content that Sony and licensees would market, such as new songs for Bust a Groove 3, or more maps for Final Fantasy X Online, or music videos to go with James Bond:Whatever the Sequel is Titled, etc.
It's primarily a preemptive strike against M$ if it does come out, but it's not like you'd need it yet either.
Hmmm. 'Right' is too strong a word... but I can use other people's work, if I own it. I can store it. I can copy it. I can back it up. I can burn it. I can 'give' it to someone else(not a copy, but the item)
The issue isn't the right to copy other people's work. What do you think the music industry does with every CD run? Making millions of copies! It's when and how making the copy is legal or not.
So if the artist is compensated in a fair way, to the artist's satisfaction, I don't see the problem of copying their work; and if they aren't satisfied, it's easy enough to just stop producing stuff for others to be copying.
A bigger issue is that the distribution method has changed/will change from Big Corporation and centralized marketing, production, processing, and advertisement, to a decentralized, word of mouth, speed of net, viral method. Now payment has to catch up, else all the artists will die, starve, or change jobs to make web pages.
I'm not particularly impressed with the need by the Big Corporations to survive. It's their job, not their right, to go with change and stuff.
Pipes and such don't work very well, unfortunately. So NT sucks...
I do use NT for my scanning system, my FireWire stuff, and my graphics stuff, as well as audio. For the longest time, Linux couldn't do any of this stuff. I guess it can do some, if not most, of it by now.
I did mention SCSI, right? Otherwise, with EIDE, I'd be eating up 25% of my processor on writing and reading to the disk... which is perilously close to maxing out my CPU.
I do have 96mb of memory. But It's an NT system, and needs it.
I have a PPro 200->233(OC) and it can to realtime encoding; IE, the CDs I encode are done, on a per song basis, before the CD finished playing them. Yes, I'm stupid enough to actually listen to the CD while I encode them. I can get away with this, I think, because I have a SCSI subsystem. Ripping the CD and writing to the HD (twice, wav and mp3) only takes 5% of my CPU time.
Of course, encoding to 192kbps takes a good 67% of the CPU.
But lets say you code down to something more reasonable. You still have to be careful that disk IO doesn't suck up all your CPU time, what with the realtime capture of audio off your soundcard, which may or may not be CPU intensive in of itself, and the realtime encoding of the mp3, as well as the realtime broadcast.
I'm not sure, but I think you may need custom software, unless someone already wrote it. Are you interested in actually storing your work? In archiving it? The wav file needs to be continually broken up and discarded on a regular basis, and the mp3s should prolly not be saved as one honking big 400 mb 12 hour session. Of course, I'm exaggeratting. I don't expect you're actually going to broadcast 24x7, right?
Anyway, an easier alternative is delayed broadcast, by even a minute. You could prolly easily rig software to grab 1 minute chunk dumps of audio output, and get the encoder and streamer to dump that in realtime to your audience.
The hard part is doing this under Linux, of course. I run WinNT, and could prolly get this going. Anyone want to elaborate from the Linux front?
For example, under NT, and I imagine Linux, BladEnc could do the encoding trivially; especially if scripted or cronned to continually convert fresh material in a dump directory.
Is dumping audio under Linux as easy as some sort of cat > file from an audio device? The problem I see is that BladEnc will finish encoding before the file is finished, and quit... while new materially continues to get written to disk.
is a Pentium Pro 200 and can compress CD quality music at 192kbps in real time; IE, it finishes compressing before the song is over(I'm crazy enough to listen to the CD while I'm compressing)
So just about any PII, Celeron, or PIII class machine today can get the job done.
Lets say you unroll WAVE as it is. How do you expect to filter out significant (we'll ignore whether they are correct or not) submissions from the noise?
*Every* teenager, to some extent, goes through angst, pain, loneliness, and insecurity. At any point, an angry teen can turn in another, when both are behaving perfectly normal.
Your <a href="http://www.waveamerica.com/waveline/earlysig ns.htm">Early Signs</a> page lists things that are so vague that they apply to almost everyone, depending on how sensitive, subtle, or eager one is to try to 'get' someone.
Some thoughts then. If your system describes perfectly ordinary people, how useful is the system? What's really going to happen, I suspect, is that you'll get so much noise that you'll be swamped. And the problem won't be false positives as much as you'll see the true problem. That many people are lonely and hurt and suffering.
Maybe because different ticket outlets have access to different events?
I dunno about you, but as a consumer, I like having the diversity... if I do a search on Amazon for a book, and it doesn't carry it, I'd love it if they linked to another bookstore, as long as the other bookstore did have it...
All in the name of customer service!
As long as your competitor offers different service than yours, it doesn't hurt you to acknowledge them. It only highlights the differences; it's up to you, as a provider, to make sure the differences aren't negative in your direction, I think!
gzip, ftp, ps, man, etc, don't change enough, and aren't sexy enough, I don't think, for people to check up on it.
Apache, emacs, whatever, will compile cleanly and safely, then. Nothing will be different. Perhaps by searching the source, they may find the discrepancy... but not by looking at the binaries. So the source would compile and provide the new 'hacked' ps, ls, man, whatever. And those programs, when used, would start to weaken the system.
What you're arguing is not the safety or security of the OS/system. I don't know that the system is safe against a distributed viral infection.
IE, in the source is a small hidden changed 'ls' or 'gzip' or 'tar'.
When it's compiled and installed, you get 'for free' a modified gzip. And this gzip, when used, will start inserting patches into source files, when it finds Makefiles.
And these patches, for example, will start to modify 'ftp', and piggyback info spread onto normal FTP usage. Modify a shell program, to get more access to the system. Modify 'find' to get more information for viral programs to use. Modify 'httpd' programs to start collecting more info and stats. Modify 'ls' to misrepresent info to the user. Modify 'chmod' to change permissions on key files.
Dunno about being destructive. Virii don't need to be destructive, and are less likely to be caught if they aren't, I think.
Why should N hundred lines of source be safe, if users don't validate the source?
What if the latest version of Emacs, or GNOME, or Apache got infected with a very small, innocuous alteration? Say, along with the above programs, the source compiled a slightly different version of man or ps, or even ftp?
What if these small programs are themselves fairly innocent, except that they start to modify other makefiles or source files, to continue to subvert the system? Changing a shell, for example, to do key logging? Piggybacking on top of FTP or telnet to actually transmit information back and forth, hidden among actual legitimate transfers? Activating only when the user runs 'find' or something, to hide among the already expected disk activity? Editing 'ls' and 'chmod' to misrepresent user access?
Little things that take a while to propogate(and to catch) that, as a whole, seriously weaken the system?
Firstly, it should try to insert itself into makefiles; some small, innocuous program the gets compiled and created and installed whenever make/gmake/gnumake gets called.
Perhaps it will replace a local utility, small, like ps or something.
Act just like PS, but have a sister program that starts to modify the other binaries. Say, like the way you can socksify certain programs. Or it will modify scripts. This program will edit/modify scripts in minor ways to call another program, like man, which to the user looks and acts like man, but when called in a certain way, will do something else.
How will it spread? Perhaps it should also infect the FTP or telnet programs.
But when it gets to the other side, it prolly won't have root privledges. Perhaps it will actually insert itself into any binary program the FTP file touches? Or into any scripts(perl, shell, or whatnot)?
And then it starts all over again.
The destructive part isn't as interesting, to me ^^
I'll agree that much of Western science is a direct result of Christians; Christianity itself is a different issue. Perhaps it's a misuse, but the term Christianity seems to indicate the Church and the power structure that goes along with it, and I don't think the Church has been very helpful, other than unintended side effects.
Being Christian is not being anti-science. Being religious is not about being anti-science. I don't doubt your last point, but for very many, bein religious and being Christian is often seems related to an anti-science and anti-progress model.
I certainly buy stuff cause of the OS; it's what supports the hardware and software.
So my next PC will be Mac, if only for their firewire support and graphics support. If BeOS were more mature, they would definitely be in the running(mature in market support).
For servers and such, Linux, of course. For games and minor productivity... Windows.
And didn't I read before that over half of the Slashdot community runs windows? Or is that an urban legend?
Well, if we really didn't like our scientists, we could kill them.
We don't have that luxury with God, I don't think.
But seriously, God is an unproven requirement for advancement in the moral and ethical area.
Science is a provem requirement for advancement in the physical area. Science improves our lives. God/Religion hasn't.
Of course, the reality is that people wield science and people wield religion. The people who are scientists have made life better, on the whole. Have the people who are religious done the same?
When you do scientific research, you *don't* know what returns you're going to get out.
In this case, studies of astrophysical objects is useful because it's studying the extreme cases of our current model of physics. The more we can explore, understand, and expand our current model, the more we can take advantage of strange phenomena that arise out of the model.
Studying black holes, quasars, stars, etc, give us some knowledge about what happens under very extreme gravitational, electromagnetic, and other strange physical effects. What other laboratory do we have to understand quantum/relativistic/gravitational/strange stuff, except our universe? How else do we expect to find out about the nature of quantum reality, and from it the advances that result from said understanding, if we don't try to model it?
IE, your previous post mentioned we should concentrate on HDTV. Our corporations are doing fine without the goverment in terms of practical advances; market forces and competition take care of that aspect. But 100 years from now, how are our corporations going to create the next Big Thing if we don't have the basic research accomplished in how the universe works? How can they exploit quantum pheonomena, without supercolliders, observing black holes, and playing with Bose-Einstein condensates?
So when a scientist discovers something, it automatically means that people(individually or not) make the discovery. As opposed to engineers(who are also people), chemists, physicists, astronomers, etc. It's just using a detailed term instead of a more general term.
A firewall, in one specific implementation, is used to prevent the spread of a fire by providing a barrier for the fire.
To extend the metaphor, then, China wants to protect it's country and its peoples. Say dangerous information, content, and people are the fire. It's implementation of blocking these people, then, is the firewall, no matter what kind of technology is used.
How about Canada?
People accessing illegal content is the fire, and with it comes litigation, lawsuits, and much angered companies. The firewall, then, would be whatever system iCrave and others implement to stop the US citizens from watching rebroadcast material.
Posting these stories does nothing to you if you are a gibbering idiot and your self esteem is crumbling.
I would suggest therapy, or pursuing positive and constructive activity.
Okay, I'm sorry; I'm feeding the trolls, and I'm being cruel to those who legitamately suffer from poor self esteem. But I'm in a strange mood, and want to respond to this one.
Is that how it works? I've never actually hung out in a pub.
The device itself is another tool, and I don't try to defend that it works or will work. Myself, I don't know how to meet enough women. It's not the interacting with them; it's the where do I spend my time in the first place to actually meet them, that's giving me problems.
Do women go to pubs? I don't know that I could say that men go do this, and women go do that, and that there are things that both sexes participate in where they mingle.
Slashdot Mirror
I mean, they aren't marketing it as such. You're not supposed to do your taxes on it, you're not going to program a QuakeIII mod on it, you won't be doing AV stuff on it...
It's meant as an entertainment device first, and a computational device second, even though there are definite overlaps.
-AS
The HD is not necessarily for the games; the downloaded content that Sony and licensees would market, such as new songs for Bust a Groove 3, or more maps for Final Fantasy X Online, or music videos to go with James Bond:Whatever the Sequel is Titled, etc.
It's primarily a preemptive strike against M$ if it does come out, but it's not like you'd need it yet either.
-AS
Hmmm. 'Right' is too strong a word... but I can use other people's work, if I own it. I can store it. I can copy it. I can back it up. I can burn it. I can 'give' it to someone else(not a copy, but the item)
The issue isn't the right to copy other people's work. What do you think the music industry does with every CD run? Making millions of copies! It's when and how making the copy is legal or not.
So if the artist is compensated in a fair way, to the artist's satisfaction, I don't see the problem of copying their work; and if they aren't satisfied, it's easy enough to just stop producing stuff for others to be copying.
A bigger issue is that the distribution method has changed/will change from Big Corporation and centralized marketing, production, processing, and advertisement, to a decentralized, word of mouth, speed of net, viral method. Now payment has to catch up, else all the artists will die, starve, or change jobs to make web pages.
I'm not particularly impressed with the need by the Big Corporations to survive. It's their job, not their right, to go with change and stuff.
-AS
Well, a lot of CPU is sucked up by ripping your CD and writing to your HD(twice), especially in IDE.
With a scsi system, that entire operation only takes 5% of my resources... I think in a similar IDE system, it'd eat up 30% or so!
So you are limited by your drives, too.
But yes, someone else mentioned LAME is slow. I use Xing or BladEnc
-AS
I didn't have this information because I run NT.
Pipes and such don't work very well, unfortunately. So NT sucks...
I do use NT for my scanning system, my FireWire stuff, and my graphics stuff, as well as audio. For the longest time, Linux couldn't do any of this stuff. I guess it can do some, if not most, of it by now.
-AS
I did mention SCSI, right? Otherwise, with EIDE, I'd be eating up 25% of my processor on writing and reading to the disk... which is perilously close to maxing out my CPU.
I do have 96mb of memory. But It's an NT system, and needs it.
I have run with 64 without a problem
32mb does indeed have serious problems
But lower bitrate stuff should take less CPU...
-AS
Hmmm.
I have a PPro 200->233(OC) and it can to realtime encoding; IE, the CDs I encode are done, on a per song basis, before the CD finished playing them. Yes, I'm stupid enough to actually listen to the CD while I encode them. I can get away with this, I think, because I have a SCSI subsystem. Ripping the CD and writing to the HD (twice, wav and mp3) only takes 5% of my CPU time.
Of course, encoding to 192kbps takes a good 67% of the CPU.
But lets say you code down to something more reasonable. You still have to be careful that disk IO doesn't suck up all your CPU time, what with the realtime capture of audio off your soundcard, which may or may not be CPU intensive in of itself, and the realtime encoding of the mp3, as well as the realtime broadcast.
I'm not sure, but I think you may need custom software, unless someone already wrote it. Are you interested in actually storing your work? In archiving it? The wav file needs to be continually broken up and discarded on a regular basis, and the mp3s should prolly not be saved as one honking big 400 mb 12 hour session. Of course, I'm exaggeratting. I don't expect you're actually going to broadcast 24x7, right?
Anyway, an easier alternative is delayed broadcast, by even a minute. You could prolly easily rig software to grab 1 minute chunk dumps of audio output, and get the encoder and streamer to dump that in realtime to your audience.
The hard part is doing this under Linux, of course. I run WinNT, and could prolly get this going. Anyone want to elaborate from the Linux front?
For example, under NT, and I imagine Linux, BladEnc could do the encoding trivially; especially if scripted or cronned to continually convert fresh material in a dump directory.
Is dumping audio under Linux as easy as some sort of cat > file from an audio device? The problem I see is that BladEnc will finish encoding before the file is finished, and quit... while new materially continues to get written to disk.
Anyone else?
-AS
is a Pentium Pro 200 and can compress CD quality music at 192kbps in real time; IE, it finishes compressing before the song is over(I'm crazy enough to listen to the CD while I'm compressing)
So just about any PII, Celeron, or PIII class machine today can get the job done.
-AS
For insightful! Terse, cogent, and too the point. This kind of statement needs more exposure in Slashdot.
Brevity, short, and well thought out.
-AS
Lets say you unroll WAVE as it is. How do you expect to filter out significant (we'll ignore whether they are correct or not) submissions from the noise?
g ns.htm">Early Signs</a> page lists things that are so vague that they apply to almost everyone, depending on how sensitive, subtle, or eager one is to try to 'get' someone.
*Every* teenager, to some extent, goes through angst, pain, loneliness, and insecurity. At any point, an angry teen can turn in another, when both are behaving perfectly normal.
Your
<a href="http://www.waveamerica.com/waveline/earlysi
Some thoughts then. If your system describes perfectly ordinary people, how useful is the system? What's really going to happen, I suspect, is that you'll get so much noise that you'll be swamped. And the problem won't be false positives as much as you'll see the true problem. That many people are lonely and hurt and suffering.
-AS
Maybe because different ticket outlets have access to different events?
I dunno about you, but as a consumer, I like having the diversity... if I do a search on Amazon for a book, and it doesn't carry it, I'd love it if they linked to another bookstore, as long as the other bookstore did have it...
All in the name of customer service!
As long as your competitor offers different service than yours, it doesn't hurt you to acknowledge them. It only highlights the differences; it's up to you, as a provider, to make sure the differences aren't negative in your direction, I think!
-AS
gzip, ftp, ps, man, etc, don't change enough, and aren't sexy enough, I don't think, for people to check up on it.
Apache, emacs, whatever, will compile cleanly and safely, then. Nothing will be different. Perhaps by searching the source, they may find the discrepancy... but not by looking at the binaries. So the source would compile and provide the new 'hacked' ps, ls, man, whatever. And those programs, when used, would start to weaken the system.
What you're arguing is not the safety or security of the OS/system. I don't know that the system is safe against a distributed viral infection.
-AS
Why can't a virus spread via source?
IE, in the source is a small hidden changed 'ls' or 'gzip' or 'tar'.
When it's compiled and installed, you get 'for free' a modified gzip. And this gzip, when used, will start inserting patches into source files, when it finds Makefiles.
And these patches, for example, will start to modify 'ftp', and piggyback info spread onto normal FTP usage. Modify a shell program, to get more access to the system. Modify 'find' to get more information for viral programs to use. Modify 'httpd' programs to start collecting more info and stats. Modify 'ls' to misrepresent info to the user. Modify 'chmod' to change permissions on key files.
Dunno about being destructive. Virii don't need to be destructive, and are less likely to be caught if they aren't, I think.
-AS
Why should N hundred lines of source be safe, if users don't validate the source?
What if the latest version of Emacs, or GNOME, or Apache got infected with a very small, innocuous alteration? Say, along with the above programs, the source compiled a slightly different version of man or ps, or even ftp?
What if these small programs are themselves fairly innocent, except that they start to modify other makefiles or source files, to continue to subvert the system? Changing a shell, for example, to do key logging? Piggybacking on top of FTP or telnet to actually transmit information back and forth, hidden among actual legitimate transfers? Activating only when the user runs 'find' or something, to hide among the already expected disk activity? Editing 'ls' and 'chmod' to misrepresent user access?
Little things that take a while to propogate(and to catch) that, as a whole, seriously weaken the system?
-AS
Firstly, it should try to insert itself into makefiles; some small, innocuous program the gets compiled and created and installed whenever make/gmake/gnumake gets called.
Perhaps it will replace a local utility, small, like ps or something.
Act just like PS, but have a sister program that starts to modify the other binaries. Say, like the way you can socksify certain programs. Or it will modify scripts. This program will edit/modify scripts in minor ways to call another program, like man, which to the user looks and acts like man, but when called in a certain way, will do something else.
How will it spread? Perhaps it should also infect the FTP or telnet programs.
But when it gets to the other side, it prolly won't have root privledges. Perhaps it will actually insert itself into any binary program the FTP file touches? Or into any scripts(perl, shell, or whatnot)?
And then it starts all over again.
The destructive part isn't as interesting, to me ^^
Does this work or sound plausible?
-AS
I'll agree that much of Western science is a direct result of Christians; Christianity itself is a different issue. Perhaps it's a misuse, but the term Christianity seems to indicate the Church and the power structure that goes along with it, and I don't think the Church has been very helpful, other than unintended side effects.
Being Christian is not being anti-science. Being religious is not about being anti-science. I don't doubt your last point, but for very many, bein religious and being Christian is often seems related to an anti-science and anti-progress model.
-AS
It's not a silly question at all.
I certainly buy stuff cause of the OS; it's what supports the hardware and software.
So my next PC will be Mac, if only for their firewire support and graphics support. If BeOS were more mature, they would definitely be in the running(mature in market support).
For servers and such, Linux, of course. For games and minor productivity... Windows.
And didn't I read before that over half of the Slashdot community runs windows? Or is that an urban legend?
-AS
Well, if we really didn't like our scientists, we could kill them.
We don't have that luxury with God, I don't think.
But seriously, God is an unproven requirement for advancement in the moral and ethical area.
Science is a provem requirement for advancement in the physical area. Science improves our lives. God/Religion hasn't.
Of course, the reality is that people wield science and people wield religion. The people who are scientists have made life better, on the whole. Have the people who are religious done the same?
-AS
I think the previous post had it right.
When you do scientific research, you *don't* know what returns you're going to get out.
In this case, studies of astrophysical objects is useful because it's studying the extreme cases of our current model of physics. The more we can explore, understand, and expand our current model, the more we can take advantage of strange phenomena that arise out of the model.
Studying black holes, quasars, stars, etc, give us some knowledge about what happens under very extreme gravitational, electromagnetic, and other strange physical effects. What other laboratory do we have to understand quantum/relativistic/gravitational/strange stuff, except our universe? How else do we expect to find out about the nature of quantum reality, and from it the advances that result from said understanding, if we don't try to model it?
IE, your previous post mentioned we should concentrate on HDTV. Our corporations are doing fine without the goverment in terms of practical advances; market forces and competition take care of that aspect. But 100 years from now, how are our corporations going to create the next Big Thing if we don't have the basic research accomplished in how the universe works? How can they exploit quantum pheonomena, without supercolliders, observing black holes, and playing with Bose-Einstein condensates?
-AS
Scientists are people, natch.
So when a scientist discovers something, it automatically means that people(individually or not) make the discovery. As opposed to engineers(who are also people), chemists, physicists, astronomers, etc. It's just using a detailed term instead of a more general term.
Nothing to get all PC over...
-AS
If there is a VR presence, as the original poster suggested, the human controller won't know that the helicopter isn't a humanoid interface.
The OI, as it were, hides that fact. The user thinks he's moving naturally, and the system compensates for him, appropriately.
-AS
Someone can hijack the frequency/control, perhaps, and take over the body?
There isn't the bandwidth to transmit the signals, sensations, and control data?
If it's remote, why make it manlike, then? Why not, say, a small helicopter?
-AS
I feel stupid for posting this.
A firewall, in one specific implementation, is used to prevent the spread of a fire by providing a barrier for the fire.
To extend the metaphor, then, China wants to protect it's country and its peoples. Say dangerous information, content, and people are the fire. It's implementation of blocking these people, then, is the firewall, no matter what kind of technology is used.
How about Canada?
People accessing illegal content is the fire, and with it comes litigation, lawsuits, and much angered companies. The firewall, then, would be whatever system iCrave and others implement to stop the US citizens from watching rebroadcast material.
-AS
Posting these stories does nothing to you if you are a gibbering idiot and your self esteem is crumbling.
I would suggest therapy, or pursuing positive and constructive activity.
Okay, I'm sorry; I'm feeding the trolls, and I'm being cruel to those who legitamately suffer from poor self esteem. But I'm in a strange mood, and want to respond to this one.
-AS
Is that how it works? I've never actually hung out in a pub.
The device itself is another tool, and I don't try to defend that it works or will work. Myself, I don't know how to meet enough women. It's not the interacting with them; it's the where do I spend my time in the first place to actually meet them, that's giving me problems.
Do women go to pubs? I don't know that I could say that men go do this, and women go do that, and that there are things that both sexes participate in where they mingle.
-AS