For TPF 2.0.15 there's a known exploit in its administrator interface on TCP port 44334 (telnet to it and you'll see a bunch of garbage). You can plug it by putting a DENY rule blocking that port.
I probably should use something better, but I need something very simple that never throws up dialogs and stuff.
Ken Brown is a Creationist. Like Christian Creationists, he misunderstand, lie, twist quotes, engage strawman arguments, pepper his writing with fallacies, redefines common terminology, and finally; refuse to provide any evidence for his outlandish claims.
For instance:
Christian Creationist: The human eye is too complex to have been created via evolution!
Operating System Creationist: Linux is too complex to have been written by one person from scratch!
In both contexts, the Fundy is not only wrong, they also add a twist to their wrongness. CC will always claim that evolution is "something from nothing", basically confusing abiogenesis with evolution. The OSC, likewise, will twist 'written from scratch' to mean 'written in a vaacuum with no tools and with a clean brain that's never been exposed to any information'
Another:
Christian Creationist: You weren't there, so you experts don't know -- but we home-schooled fake-PhDs do!
Operating System Creationist: You weren't there, so you computer science experts don't know -- but we English Majors do!
As much as I hate to say it, IMHO, they almost deserve it...
I help my father keep up to date with patches on his laptop. Last time he was here I ran Windows Update only to find that three patches REFUSED TO INSTALL. He was in a hurry so I couldn't start trying to track down the individual patches and see if downloading those would magically work better (why would they?!)
I've installed Tiny Personal Firewall (with a fix for the known exploit) and I hope that will be enough to shield him against the worms, which are much more critical than IE and/or Outlook exploits.
It's going to be more of a PDA/Calculator/DataLogger all in one from what I can tell. There's a market for it, but it's not as large as say.. selling to students.
It's being "rewritten", apparently. Was mentioned in an article a couple of days ago. Allegedly to add in Browns answer to the criticism he's recieved, and the news of Linus wanting more source history control in his tree.
My guess is that it will lose all the debunked bullshit and instead consist of "Look, Linus Torvalds want better source history control in the Linux OS (confusing the kernel with the OS, again), therefore we were right all along no matter what we said! Based on this we draw the conclusion that so there! Greetz to Team McBride and Billy The Goatsex"
"In a paper to be released next week, the Alexis de Tocqueville Institution outlines how open source might facilitate efforts to disrupt or sabotage electronic commerce, air traffic control or even sensitive surveillance systems."
AdTI 2004:
"[Government should] work vigorously to create a true 'free source' code capability program
at universities and colleges. This program should go to promote true
open source projects [...] The federal government should support a $5
billion budget over ten years to produce a free source code project in
partnership with the IT industry and [other governments]" -- linux-'insider'[sic]
But does it do any semantic analysis? I assume a real person at least reads the material once, or this is going to pass some very interesting material.
In a revealing interview, a SCO VP recently stated that SCO's strategy in this case is not to "put everything on the table at the start, but instead to bring out arguments and evidence piece by piece".
"SCO should not be allowed, through its own misconduct, to prolong this case merely to serve its own interests in cultivating the fear, uncertainty and doubt SCO has created regarding Linux and IBM's products.
Anyone know if there's a paper on this? This news came up on another site a couple of days ago, but they didn't even mention the researchers name, only implied it was presented at EuroCrypt'2004 in Switzerland. I looked though the list of accepted papers, but nothing stood out.
A search on IACR will give a single hit on the author, but it isn't this report/paper/work.
I still don't think it's novel. If you fade out very slowly, you're forced to consider the question of when the element is to be concidered 'dead'. It's just a natural consequence of fading slowly -- not something non-intuitive which should require any special inventive skills to come up with.
Fading out (not novel) * doint it slowly (not novel) * reacting to problem posed due to doing it slowly (not novel) = not novel.
Feel free to disagree, but Apple -- and everyone else -- should focus on creating a good implementation instead of abusing the idiocy of software patents.
So losing focus when fading out at (0..1) is novel.. when there are lots of applications which lose focus at [0,1]?
I have a new idea for a patent, what about a patent on windows that close after a user-defined delay of X ms after having their close-button clicked, where X > 0. That's gotta be novel. After all, todays windows close immediately (. Adding user defined timing.. well, that changes EVERYTHING!.)..oh! I know! How about fading out/replacing other GUI elements (input-boxes for instance) after a possibly user-defined idle time? (possibly accepting the input in the process).
This is great. Now I can just enter my URL in the browser, wait two seconds (idle) and the field will fade out, leaving more room to display the contents I requested! Novel! Patent! Wohooo!
In Miranda you can set "Hide contact bar after it's been idle for X seconds". You can also set the transparency of the contact bar when active and when inactive (I run 0%/25% -- very practical being able to read through the window when it isn't in focus). In addition, you can set it to FADE OUT on going from active to inactive.
Result: The window fades out after having been inactive after X seconds (user defined). Activate Miranda again, and it fades back in.
I guess the question is "how far" is the leap from timed fading out to what Apple describes -- which includes a threshold of fading where the overlaying windows stops recieving events.
In my mind, that's not a great leap, but rather a necessity if/when you set the fade-out to be very slow. The main difference is that current apps fade quickly, while Apple seems to describe a situation where it's very gradual. Is manipulating 't' -- thereby being forced into chosing when to stop accepting events, novel? I'd say, not very.
I'm not sure when miranda got this, but I guess it's been there since 2001-2002, possibly earlier.
The only reason most implementations of 'transparency' isn't 'real' (only one layer and/or non-realistic blending and/or not affecting certain surfaces (such as video) is because the CPU/GPUs haven't been fast enought to implement it, not because no-one thought of it.
I assume they're trying to patent some particular implementation, and not the idea tough. If it's the idea this shit should be fucking ripped apart and pain administered.
If it's a particular implementation it's just software patent (aka 'math') stupidity. Hmm.. thinking about it.. Yeah, that deserves the same treatment.
>Web site accessibility (use image type supported by all major browsers)
All the "good features" of GIF is supported by PNG in all current browsers. You'd have to go back in time fem years to find a browser that can't display a basic PNG. If you think otherwise, give me a link to one that matters that doesn't, and explain to me why, if it wasn't released/updated this year, using it isn't a security issue.
Since GIF doesn't support per-pixel-alpha to begin with, you lose nothing by using PNG for everything. After all, with GIF you didn't have the choice at all so there is no issue with simply "converting to PNG".
Score: PNG
>Bandwidth conservation
PNGs are always smaller where it matters (anything more complex than 1x1x1-images). In some not atypical cases a PNG can be 25% smaller than the corresponding GIF.
Score: PNG
PS. GIF-via-LZW is still encumbered in many countries.
More features, better standard, solid software, no licensing issues, smaller output == Winner: PNG
We probably have different tolerances for what is sluggish (I guess there could be a difference between burners also). When I'm burning at 5540Kbyte/s in Nero on my Win2K box I'll have to wait for things which should be instant (opening windows, swapping between application). I'll never trade that for being able to pull the DVDR out and archive it a measly twenty minutes or whatever earlier.
My primary reason for not going full speed is, like for you, media. Slower burn, better burn.
Slashdot Mirror
For TPF 2.0.15 there's a known exploit in its administrator interface on TCP port 44334 (telnet to it and you'll see a bunch of garbage). You can plug it by putting a DENY rule blocking that port.
I probably should use something better, but I need something very simple that never throws up dialogs and stuff.
Ken Brown is a Creationist. Like Christian Creationists, he misunderstand, lie, twist quotes, engage strawman arguments, pepper his writing with fallacies, redefines common terminology, and finally; refuse to provide any evidence for his outlandish claims.
For instance:
Christian Creationist: The human eye is too complex to have been created via evolution!
Operating System Creationist: Linux is too complex to have been written by one person from scratch!
In both contexts, the Fundy is not only wrong, they also add a twist to their wrongness. CC will always claim that evolution is "something from nothing", basically confusing abiogenesis with evolution. The OSC, likewise, will twist 'written from scratch' to mean 'written in a vaacuum with no tools and with a clean brain that's never been exposed to any information'
Another:
Christian Creationist: You weren't there, so you experts don't know -- but we home-schooled fake-PhDs do!
Operating System Creationist: You weren't there, so you computer science experts don't know -- but we English Majors do!
Ken Brown, OS Creationist.
As much as I hate to say it, IMHO, they almost deserve it...
I help my father keep up to date with patches on his laptop. Last time he was here I ran Windows Update only to find that three patches REFUSED TO INSTALL. He was in a hurry so I couldn't start trying to track down the individual patches and see if downloading those would magically work better (why would they?!)
I've installed Tiny Personal Firewall (with a fix for the known exploit) and I hope that will be enough to shield him against the worms, which are much more critical than IE and/or Outlook exploits.
Fucking crap.
It's going to be more of a PDA/Calculator/DataLogger all in one from what I can tell. There's a market for it, but it's not as large as say.. selling to students.
Think 'engineers who work in the field'.
Keyman thread.
I'll leave it to the lawyers to figure out.
It's being "rewritten", apparently. Was mentioned in an article a couple of days ago. Allegedly to add in Browns answer to the criticism he's recieved, and the news of Linus wanting more source history control in his tree.
My guess is that it will lose all the debunked bullshit and instead consist of "Look, Linus Torvalds want better source history control in the Linux OS (confusing the kernel with the OS, again), therefore we were right all along no matter what we said! Based on this we draw the conclusion that so there! Greetz to Team McBride and Billy The Goatsex"
In the first press conference in Cannes he implied he'd leak it unless the distribution problem cleared up before the election.
AdTI 2002:
AdTI 2004:
But does it do any semantic analysis? I assume a real person at least reads the material once, or this is going to pass some very interesting material.
I'm calling upon ALL European Citizens to VOTE IN THE NEXT EUROPEAN ELECTIONS
For who? The vote is in the next week or two and I don't know anyone who's against this crap.
Give me a name and I'll vote.
Memorandum in opposition is now available. PDF here (my conversion).
Goodies.
Are you using the original firmware or one of the hacked ones? The hacked ones generally provide better media support.
I'm using cheap ass Princo 4x in mine and it works just fine at 2x.
Anyone know if there's a paper on this? This news came up on another site a couple of days ago, but they didn't even mention the researchers name, only implied it was presented at EuroCrypt'2004 in Switzerland. I looked though the list of accepted papers, but nothing stood out.
A search on IACR will give a single hit on the author, but it isn't this report/paper/work.
I still don't think it's novel. If you fade out very slowly, you're forced to consider the question of when the element is to be concidered 'dead'. It's just a natural consequence of fading slowly -- not something non-intuitive which should require any special inventive skills to come up with.
Fading out (not novel) * doint it slowly (not novel) * reacting to problem posed due to doing it slowly (not novel) = not novel.
Feel free to disagree, but Apple -- and everyone else -- should focus on creating a good implementation instead of abusing the idiocy of software patents.
So losing focus when fading out at (0..1) is novel.. when there are lots of applications which lose focus at [0,1]?
I have a new idea for a patent, what about a patent on windows that close after a user-defined delay of X ms after having their close-button clicked, where X > 0. That's gotta be novel. After all, todays windows close immediately (. Adding user defined timing.. well, that changes EVERYTHING! .) ..oh! I know! How about fading out/replacing other GUI elements (input-boxes for instance) after a possibly user-defined idle time? (possibly accepting the input in the process).
This is great. Now I can just enter my URL in the browser, wait two seconds (idle) and the field will fade out, leaving more room to display the contents I requested! Novel! Patent! Wohooo!
In Miranda you can set "Hide contact bar after it's been idle for X seconds". You can also set the transparency of the contact bar when active and when inactive (I run 0%/25% -- very practical being able to read through the window when it isn't in focus). In addition, you can set it to FADE OUT on going from active to inactive.
Result: The window fades out after having been inactive after X seconds (user defined). Activate Miranda again, and it fades back in.
I guess the question is "how far" is the leap from timed fading out to what Apple describes -- which includes a threshold of fading where the overlaying windows stops recieving events.
In my mind, that's not a great leap, but rather a necessity if/when you set the fade-out to be very slow. The main difference is that current apps fade quickly, while Apple seems to describe a situation where it's very gradual. Is manipulating 't' -- thereby being forced into chosing when to stop accepting events, novel? I'd say, not very.
I'm not sure when miranda got this, but I guess it's been there since 2001-2002, possibly earlier.
Who cares? It's not NOVEL!
The only reason most implementations of 'transparency' isn't 'real' (only one layer and/or non-realistic blending and/or not affecting certain surfaces (such as video) is because the CPU/GPUs haven't been fast enought to implement it, not because no-one thought of it.
I assume they're trying to patent some particular implementation, and not the idea tough. If it's the idea this shit should be fucking ripped apart and pain administered.
If it's a particular implementation it's just software patent (aka 'math') stupidity. Hmm.. thinking about it.. Yeah, that deserves the same treatment.
...complained about the weather too, and those gawd damned mammals!
.. to update your .finger with some techno-babble. We love it!
(I'm serious, it's been ages, and the new cards he talked about in 2003 are now here, NDA-free)
>Web site accessibility (use image type supported by all major browsers)
All the "good features" of GIF is supported by PNG in all current browsers. You'd have to go back in time fem years to find a browser that can't display a basic PNG. If you think otherwise, give me a link to one that matters that doesn't, and explain to me why, if it wasn't released/updated this year, using it isn't a security issue.
Since GIF doesn't support per-pixel-alpha to begin with, you lose nothing by using PNG for everything. After all, with GIF you didn't have the choice at all so there is no issue with simply "converting to PNG".
Score: PNG
>Bandwidth conservation
PNGs are always smaller where it matters (anything more complex than 1x1x1-images). In some not atypical cases a PNG can be 25% smaller than the corresponding GIF.
Score: PNG
PS. GIF-via-LZW is still encumbered in many countries.
More features, better standard, solid software, no licensing issues, smaller output == Winner: PNG
>Use gif for images such as this.
No, use PNG.
If you're going to do it, do it right. Using GIFs is half-assed.
There's a well known intro paper on wavelets here: Building your own wavelets at home (Wim Sweldens and Peter Schröder, ACM SIGGRAPH 1996)
More here.
>I guess this is one way to see who is really using open source.
Not really, it's blinking in Opera too. Looks really screwed up.
Ah, the joy of non-validating markup.
Wonder if we're going to see the Robot counterpart to "Furries" in the future? What would they call themselves?
Maybe they already exist.
GROUP HUG!
We probably have different tolerances for what is sluggish (I guess there could be a difference between burners also). When I'm burning at 5540Kbyte/s in Nero on my Win2K box I'll have to wait for things which should be instant (opening windows, swapping between application). I'll never trade that for being able to pull the DVDR out and archive it a measly twenty minutes or whatever earlier.
My primary reason for not going full speed is, like for you, media. Slower burn, better burn.