I wonder if it will be possible to retrofit...
on
42-Volt Autos
·
· Score: 1
I'd love to be able to put one of these higher voltage batteries/alternators in my 2000 VW.
Anyone know what would be involved, or if it would even be possible to retrofit such a system? Wouldn't it fry the existing (stock) vehicle electronics (ECU's, et al.)?
Chpffft they let KAtz go..
loose
"Let go"
HAHAAHAHAH
ASKING ABOUT KATZ
I liked katz!
i hate him
round of layoffs = getting rid of useless editors
err * Katrina glares
I liked Katz too
[08:15:38] He added a lot to Slashdot, and it was really unfortunate.
This is exactly one of the things that the the US SEC is going after Martha Stewart over. She committed much larger crimes when she said she wasn't involved in insider trading; the reason being that she lied to investors so they wouldn't sell off Martha Stuart, Inc. stock and that's a much bigger no-no than admitting to insider trading. The point is that if investors are involved, and you lie in order to preserve their confidence or to try to subvert them from selling shares of your company, you are committing a much more significant crime. If you're just marketing your product, however, you're not breaking the [US] law.
You're absolutely correct. I (and I speak for myself alone, and no one else), am absolutely opposed to poor computing in whatever format it may take. My consistency arises purely out of Microsoft's consistent detrimental actions to the computing industry.
You may notice, however, that I did give them due propers for recently (win2k/XP) not running apps by default as the root/Admin user.
I give credit where credit is due. They have earned any credit that I have extended to them, and conversely - they have _earned_ the criticisms.
1) *nix folks that aren't running the browser as root are safe from this issue, right? Assuming so, once again, *nix (and recent Wins) have demonstrated the necessary damage control of user-level code control.
2) If full-disclosure becomes frowned upon in the industry, wouldn't this be VERY BAD for non-proprietary systems? Specifically - If MSFT and Security-focus (et al.) don't disclose bugs like these, wouldn't it be an extremely powerful tool for both political and technical sabotage? I mean, what could be better for MSFT's new "trustworthly initiative" than selective disclosure? They would obviously want to distance themselves as much as possible from a security issue, and would undoubtedly (based on their PROVEN record of monopolistic activities) point the finger AWAY from their software - considering that they're a majority factor in the potentially forthcoming security disclosure realm?
Yes, but the linux community should strike pre-emptively here. If we wait until it hits the court system to see what code in question is, it may be too late. Every reasonable measure should be taken to evaluate the code before it hits the courts and categorize it into:
a) known-good; (written by linus himself, etc) b) presumed-good; (inherited from BSD, or whatnot) c) author verified; (the code segment author has stated the code as clean) d) undetermined - waiting author confirmation, or unknown origin
Doing this would serve multiple functions. Among them would be a much smaller bank of code to search through, and potential damage control should we find ourselves in the worse case scenario.
I never challenged the original post. I just wanted to offer another viewpoint.
Besides - I can't help but think if it can be done _at all_ it can be done with linux. But I'm just one of the enlightened ones. Your usage may prove otherwise.
Why try to turn a non-embedded app (ie. Win98 native) into a native app by using Wine? Wine wasn't designed to be embedded. I don't doubt that it might give a run for the money, but it just wasn't designed for it.
No disrespect to the parent poster, but I think that designing an app to be embedded would be a lot easier than morphing and existing app into a Win98 / Linux+Wine pseudo-embedded-app.
Develop it for *nix(Qnx included) and *BSD for maximum portability, and if necessary port it to the proprietary less stable systems.
Just as an FYI - DRM didn't come about as a result of "security" issues (although that's what they'd have you belive). It came about by BILLIONS of dollars of losses to industry due to piracy and ultimately irresponsible use of technology. I'm really not pointing fingers and I know I'm taking a chance by posting this viewpoint on Slashdot.
My point is this - people[as individuals] can't be trusted to govern themselves (anarchy anyone?). Established rules have to be defined _and_ adhered to (wether by choice or not). Since users clearly can't be counted on to govern themselves with the power of piracy at their fingertips (Kazaa, etc). - I'm sure we all know _someone_ that bootlegs. Our best response would be to create an OPEN equivalent to MSFTs DRM. This is the ONLY way that civil liberties can be protected, and responsible media dissemination can be combined. If an OPEN DRM standard becomes available it would: a) allow for peer-review of code, standards, etc.. b) allow for MULTIPLE companies to have access to DRM technologies - as soon as DRM is in place, it will provide (by definition) an inability to scrutinize or audit the technologies that compose it - and as such promote competition, and prevent monopolization. c) allow for civil liberties preservation, by ACLU (and equivlents in other countries) audits and close monitoring.
As much as we may not like it - the fact is that DRM is inevitable. We [computer users in general] have unfortunately brought it upon themselves. Our best bet at this point is to either grab our ankles and get ready to take it in the backdoor, or do something about it, and make sure DRM comes about responsibly.
This is probably a strategic move on MSFT's part. They can get in bed with RIAA, et al. by offering DRM. Websites like the forthcoming Windows equivalent of iTunes will REQUIRE IE in order to use their service.
This also precisely explains why IE hasn't been sweating the Mozilla (et al) comeback. They're hedging their bets that service providers (softwrae distributors, RIAA, independent music distributors, or ANY media distributor for that matter - will _force_ users to use IE. It's about supply and demand, and if the only supply of a product DEMANDS that you use IE, you'll have no choice. They clearly appear to being protecting their monopoly with this move.
This truly IS high tech!!!
on
YOPY Arrives
·
· Score: -1, Offtopic
Whoa! It comes with a Colorful LED Indicator!!! I can't wait until they make one with a 4" Touchscreen LCD !
Does anyone else think this seems to be a little fishy?
I sure hope that one of the part distributors' factories doesn't suddenly explode out on some tiny unheard of little island in Asia or anything. [ referring to the great memory price spike back in the mid-late 90's ]
Just imagine what the price of hard disks would skyrocket up to. It kind of makes you wonder where the storage/profit ratio begins to slope off for the manufacturer...
unless Microsoft tries to use some kind of licensing muscle that tells the nonprofits they can't use free software at the same time, then there's no harm done here. It's just tax write-offs and some good PR for Microsoft.
That is of course, unless you're a taxpayer in the US. Just as an FYI - If MSFT payed their due taxes this year (or last or the year before), the new "great Republican taxcut" that is supposed to help the US [but is probably going to destroy it - due to the new unfactored global economy variable], the US would probably be helping the rest of the world by purchasing overseas goods and doing business as usual.
Do you guys think it's any coincidence that MSFT chairman Bill G. went over to India to try to garner support?
Do your homework folks!!! We're in some serious trouble here. Those of us that learn early are likely to walk away from this with the least amoutn of damage.
Non-competes can't be that vague... They can only limit exact geographic regions, competitive timeframes (for the technology industry), and specific industries or products. A non-compete that tells you that:
a) you can't work in the tech industry [or even the dishsoap or whatever related tech industry] (none-the-less way too vague) b) for an unreasonable amount of time (2 years or more for IT - in IT that's considered way too long) c) competing against _any_ product in the industry
is not legal. Civil rights are still alive (at least here in the US). So basically any company that makes you sign a non-compete with any of those clauses [probably!] won't stand a chance in court.
They can make your non-compete legal by forcing you not to compete with their exact "work product" for a reasonable amount of time.
If you're ever presented with an outrageously vague non-compete contract, just modify it reasonably (ie. 1-2 years timeline for technology; specific work-product(s); and specific geographic region (your country)). If they have a problem with your modified Non-compete, don't walk away - RUN! On the other hand - try to work something out. If you don't your job could end up in some 3rd world country.
Bottom line: here in the US you have certain rights, but do your best to keep your opportunity while preserving your rights (and keeping the job here in the States).
I agree with this. Based on the prior art that was mentioned previously in this post (a few threads above at the moment). I highly doubt that the USPTO (I'm assuming) would issue a patent for this technology, or that one hasn't been issued already. If the poster has the patents he mentions, he could post links to them to establish credibility (since they're already "patented", his IP is safe).
If he doesn't have patents, though, let's not burst his bubble on being creative and inventing. Let's just call him out on questionable material.
As an inventor myself (with 0 successful patents to date), I can attest to the difficulty of obtaining a valid [US] patent. I find these patents highly questionable.
This could easily backfire and put more power into the hands of MSFT. Since they're currently the only (IFAIK) OS distributor that is "enabling the consumer by adding DRM to the core OS", some software companies may turn to them in an effort to protect their stranglehold on consumers. I'm not necessarily saying that TurboTax was doing this, but the RIAA certainly is; and as such, they're very likely to help push MSFT's propaganda and ultimately help proliferate DRM.
Here's the bottom line, if we (media users) don't act responsibly and avoid the urge to pirate videos, music, and software (at least buy it or otherwise support the creator somehow), these companies will force DRM onto us.
As consumers we do have significant "wallet" power, however, if we don't act responsibly, the powers that be will make sure that we do [act responsibly].
Call me conservative, but the creators of digital content (videos, audio, etc) should be able to make a living; however, they also shouldn't be able to destroy consumers by partnering with an unavoidable monopoly either.
If we don't take responsibility for our actions (and our peers' actions) now, we can't complain about losing our [said] rights in the future.
If you really think that the corporate world doesn't know the producers from the dead-weight, especially in _this_ economy, you're sorely mistaken. I get projects thrown at me almost daily, and right now I wouldn't have it any other way. Right now, I consider myself _privileged_ just to have a job (and doing what I enjoy I might add); and as such I'm busting my hump just to help my company (and my job) achive it's goals.
The slackers out there that are hiding behind their bash scripts, are sure to be disovered and their jobs are sure to get passed along shortly thereafter.
I'm not quite sure what the Win/MCSE crowd is going to do though. I highly doubt that Win/MCSE certification/experience are going to be in high demand anytime soon...
Especially with *nix/*BSD kicking in the door like it apparently has been.
I can't help but think that the only useful reason for putting "unique" data in a window border would be to provide key data for analog captures/etc. By having a personal "tag" in a visual border (and potentially audio), they are taking a step toward making viewers/players/etc [the only link between the analog and digital realm] prolific. They're hoping it will become 'the norm[al]' in a few years, and as such, it could ultimately lead to the end of the analog/digital loophole that currently exists in DRM.
If I'm not mistaken, didn't one of the Security patches UNPATCH the original patch for this vuln? If that's the case, I can see an arguement for incompetence; but at this point, I'm still on the fence with this whole issue.
I think this is what the submitter meant by "putting the SQL Slammer vuln [back] into Windows".
Just a hunch...
What does it do behind Eterm or the like?
on
Eyes on Karamba
·
· Score: 1
Here's a quick question I haven't been able to find an answer to: What happens is I run an Eterm session on top of this? If the background continues to update, and do it's thing behind my text session, I'm going to have to change my shorts.
Anyone know? I haven't been able to find anything (yet)...
Erm, how about as a "preview" of what's happening around you? I use it to display FoxNews.com headlines, weather images, syslogs, slashdot, etc... When I see something that intrigues me I fire up the browser, or Eterm or whatever. It's much more functional than just some silly backround picture of your kids.
Granted, you still have to load the browser, but rather than doing it "just to see what's on slashdot", you can decide if there's anything interesting before doing so - As such, I think your arguement defeats itself, and shows how helpful this tool really is.
I agree... Just because you can, doesn't mean you should. Likewise, just because he has the know-how to do this, doesn't mean he should. I tend to think that his arrogance and bragging may very well cost people their lives somewhere, because he published this information.
Slashdot Mirror
I'd love to be able to put one of these higher voltage batteries/alternators in my 2000 VW.
Anyone know what would be involved, or if it would even be possible to retrofit such a system? Wouldn't it fry the existing (stock) vehicle electronics (ECU's, et al.)?
Apparently they let him go:
Chpffft they let KAtz go..
loose
"Let go"
HAHAAHAHAH
ASKING ABOUT KATZ
I liked katz!
i hate him
round of layoffs = getting rid of useless editors
err
* Katrina glares
I liked Katz too
[08:15:38] He added a lot to Slashdot, and it was really unfortunate.
This is exactly one of the things that the the US SEC is going after Martha Stewart over. She committed much larger crimes when she said she wasn't involved in insider trading; the reason being that she lied to investors so they wouldn't sell off Martha Stuart, Inc. stock and that's a much bigger no-no than admitting to insider trading. The point is that if investors are involved, and you lie in order to preserve their confidence or to try to subvert them from selling shares of your company, you are committing a much more significant crime. If you're just marketing your product, however, you're not breaking the [US] law.
You're absolutely correct. I (and I speak for myself alone, and no one else), am absolutely opposed to poor computing in whatever format it may take. My consistency arises purely out of Microsoft's consistent detrimental actions to the computing industry.
You may notice, however, that I did give them due propers for recently (win2k/XP) not running apps by default as the root/Admin user.
I give credit where credit is due. They have earned any credit that I have extended to them, and conversely - they have _earned_ the criticisms.
1) *nix folks that aren't running the browser as root are safe from this issue, right? Assuming so, once again, *nix (and recent Wins) have demonstrated the necessary damage control of user-level code control.
2) If full-disclosure becomes frowned upon in the industry, wouldn't this be VERY BAD for non-proprietary systems? Specifically - If MSFT and Security-focus (et al.) don't disclose bugs like these, wouldn't it be an extremely powerful tool for both political and technical sabotage? I mean, what could be better for MSFT's new "trustworthly initiative" than selective disclosure? They would obviously want to distance themselves as much as possible from a security issue, and would undoubtedly (based on their PROVEN record of monopolistic activities) point the finger AWAY from their software - considering that they're a majority factor in the potentially forthcoming security disclosure realm?
Yes, but the linux community should strike pre-emptively here. If we wait until it hits the court system to see what code in question is, it may be too late. Every reasonable measure should be taken to evaluate the code before it hits the courts and categorize it into:
a) known-good; (written by linus himself, etc)
b) presumed-good; (inherited from BSD, or whatnot)
c) author verified; (the code segment author has stated the code as clean)
d) undetermined - waiting author confirmation, or unknown origin
Doing this would serve multiple functions. Among them would be a much smaller bank of code to search through, and potential damage control should we find ourselves in the worse case scenario.
I never challenged the original post. I just wanted to offer another viewpoint.
Besides - I can't help but think if it can be done _at all_ it can be done with linux. But I'm just one of the enlightened ones. Your usage may prove otherwise.
Why try to turn a non-embedded app (ie. Win98 native) into a native app by using Wine? Wine wasn't designed to be embedded. I don't doubt that it might give a run for the money, but it just wasn't designed for it.
No disrespect to the parent poster, but I think that designing an app to be embedded would be a lot easier than morphing and existing app into a Win98 / Linux+Wine pseudo-embedded-app.
Develop it for *nix(Qnx included) and *BSD for maximum portability, and if necessary port it to the proprietary less stable systems.
Just as an FYI - DRM didn't come about as a result of "security" issues (although that's what they'd have you belive). It came about by BILLIONS of dollars of losses to industry due to piracy and ultimately irresponsible use of technology. I'm really not pointing fingers and I know I'm taking a chance by posting this viewpoint on Slashdot.
My point is this - people[as individuals] can't be trusted to govern themselves (anarchy anyone?). Established rules have to be defined _and_ adhered to (wether by choice or not). Since users clearly can't be counted on to govern themselves with the power of piracy at their fingertips (Kazaa, etc). - I'm sure we all know _someone_ that bootlegs. Our best response would be to create an OPEN equivalent to MSFTs DRM. This is the ONLY way that civil liberties can be protected, and responsible media dissemination can be combined. If an OPEN DRM standard becomes available it would:
a) allow for peer-review of code, standards, etc..
b) allow for MULTIPLE companies to have access to DRM technologies - as soon as DRM is in place, it will provide (by definition) an inability to scrutinize or audit the technologies that compose it - and as such promote competition, and prevent monopolization.
c) allow for civil liberties preservation, by ACLU (and equivlents in other countries) audits and close monitoring.
As much as we may not like it - the fact is that DRM is inevitable. We [computer users in general] have unfortunately brought it upon themselves. Our best bet at this point is to either grab our ankles and get ready to take it in the backdoor, or do something about it, and make sure DRM comes about responsibly.
This is probably a strategic move on MSFT's part. They can get in bed with RIAA, et al. by offering DRM. Websites like the forthcoming Windows equivalent of iTunes will REQUIRE IE in order to use their service.
This also precisely explains why IE hasn't been sweating the Mozilla (et al) comeback. They're hedging their bets that service providers (softwrae distributors, RIAA, independent music distributors, or ANY media distributor for that matter - will _force_ users to use IE. It's about supply and demand, and if the only supply of a product DEMANDS that you use IE, you'll have no choice. They clearly appear to being protecting their monopoly with this move.
Whoa! It comes with a Colorful LED Indicator!!! I can't wait until they make one with a 4" Touchscreen LCD !
Oh yah also - First Post!
Does anyone else think this seems to be a little fishy?
I sure hope that one of the part distributors' factories doesn't suddenly explode out on some tiny unheard of little island in Asia or anything.
[ referring to the great memory price spike back in the mid-late 90's ]
Just imagine what the price of hard disks would skyrocket up to. It kind of makes you wonder where the storage/profit ratio begins to slope off for the manufacturer...
unless Microsoft tries to use some kind of licensing muscle that tells the nonprofits they can't use free software at the same time, then there's no harm done here. It's just tax write-offs and some good PR for Microsoft.
That is of course, unless you're a taxpayer in the US. Just as an FYI - If MSFT payed their due taxes this year (or last or the year before), the new "great Republican taxcut" that is supposed to help the US [but is probably going to destroy it - due to the new unfactored global economy variable], the US would probably be helping the rest of the world by purchasing overseas goods and doing business as usual.
Do you guys think it's any coincidence that MSFT chairman Bill G. went over to India to try to garner support?
Do your homework folks!!! We're in some serious trouble here. Those of us that learn early are likely to walk away from this with the least amoutn of damage.
Non-competes can't be that vague... They can only limit exact geographic regions, competitive timeframes (for the technology industry), and specific industries or products. A non-compete that tells you that:
a) you can't work in the tech industry [or even the dishsoap or whatever related tech industry] (none-the-less way too vague)
b) for an unreasonable amount of time (2 years or more for IT - in IT that's considered way too long)
c) competing against _any_ product in the industry
is not legal. Civil rights are still alive (at least here in the US). So basically any company that makes you sign a non-compete with any of those clauses [probably!] won't stand a chance in court.
They can make your non-compete legal by forcing you not to compete with their exact "work product" for a reasonable amount of time.
If you're ever presented with an outrageously vague non-compete contract, just modify it reasonably (ie. 1-2 years timeline for technology; specific work-product(s); and specific geographic region (your country)). If they have a problem with your modified Non-compete, don't walk away - RUN! On the other hand - try to work something out. If you don't your job could end up in some 3rd world country.
Bottom line: here in the US you have certain rights, but do your best to keep your opportunity while preserving your rights (and keeping the job here in the States).
Disclaimer: I work for an IP attorney
They don't have to provide the source code with the distribution. They just have to provide it if asked.
Have you asked them for it directly?
I agree with this. Based on the prior art that was mentioned previously in this post (a few threads above at the moment). I highly doubt that the USPTO (I'm assuming) would issue a patent for this technology, or that one hasn't been issued already. If the poster has the patents he mentions, he could post links to them to establish credibility (since they're already "patented", his IP is safe).
If he doesn't have patents, though, let's not burst his bubble on being creative and inventing. Let's just call him out on questionable material.
As an inventor myself (with 0 successful patents to date), I can attest to the difficulty of obtaining a valid [US] patent. I find these patents highly questionable.
Hopefully, the poster will prove us both wrong...
This could easily backfire and put more power into the hands of MSFT. Since they're currently the only (IFAIK) OS distributor that is "enabling the consumer by adding DRM to the core OS", some software companies may turn to them in an effort to protect their stranglehold on consumers. I'm not necessarily saying that TurboTax was doing this, but the RIAA certainly is; and as such, they're very likely to help push MSFT's propaganda and ultimately help proliferate DRM.
Here's the bottom line, if we (media users) don't act responsibly and avoid the urge to pirate videos, music, and software (at least buy it or otherwise support the creator somehow), these companies will force DRM onto us.
As consumers we do have significant "wallet" power, however, if we don't act responsibly, the powers that be will make sure that we do [act responsibly].
Call me conservative, but the creators of digital content (videos, audio, etc) should be able to make a living; however, they also shouldn't be able to destroy consumers by partnering with an unavoidable monopoly either.
If we don't take responsibility for our actions (and our peers' actions) now, we can't complain about losing our [said] rights in the future.
If you really think that the corporate world doesn't know the producers from the dead-weight, especially in _this_ economy, you're sorely mistaken. I get projects thrown at me almost daily, and right now I wouldn't have it any other way. Right now, I consider myself _privileged_ just to have a job (and doing what I enjoy I might add); and as such I'm busting my hump just to help my company (and my job) achive it's goals.
The slackers out there that are hiding behind their bash scripts, are sure to be disovered and their jobs are sure to get passed along shortly thereafter.
I'm not quite sure what the Win/MCSE crowd is going to do though. I highly doubt that Win/MCSE certification/experience are going to be in high demand anytime soon...
Especially with *nix/*BSD kicking in the door like it apparently has been.
Right, but couldn't people be stereotyped? This could be an abstraction of "individualized".
I can't help but think that the only useful reason for putting "unique" data in a window border would be to provide key data for analog captures/etc. By having a personal "tag" in a visual border (and potentially audio), they are taking a step toward making viewers/players/etc [the only link between the analog and digital realm] prolific. They're hoping it will become 'the norm[al]' in a few years, and as such, it could ultimately lead to the end of the analog/digital loophole that currently exists in DRM.
I hope I explained this adequately...
Scary stuff, IMHO.
If I'm not mistaken, didn't one of the Security patches UNPATCH the original patch for this vuln? If that's the case, I can see an arguement for incompetence; but at this point, I'm still on the fence with this whole issue.
I think this is what the submitter meant by "putting the SQL Slammer vuln [back] into Windows".
Just a hunch...
Here's a quick question I haven't been able to find an answer to: What happens is I run an Eterm session on top of this? If the background continues to update, and do it's thing behind my text session, I'm going to have to change my shorts.
Anyone know? I haven't been able to find anything (yet)...
Erm, how about as a "preview" of what's happening around you? I use it to display FoxNews.com headlines, weather images, syslogs, slashdot, etc... When I see something that intrigues me I fire up the browser, or Eterm or whatever. It's much more functional than just some silly backround picture of your kids.
Granted, you still have to load the browser, but rather than doing it "just to see what's on slashdot", you can decide if there's anything interesting before doing so - As such, I think your arguement defeats itself, and shows how helpful this tool really is.
I agree... Just because you can, doesn't mean you should. Likewise, just because he has the know-how to do this, doesn't mean he should. I tend to think that his arrogance and bragging may very well cost people their lives somewhere, because he published this information.
What ever happened to personal responisibility?
Oh, you mean this guy?