Or you can buy a set of red, green and blue gels and take 3 shots in B&W. Perhaps even mod the scanner to be able to slip them in without moving the object being scanned.
Or if the scanner's lamps are LED, mod it to use red, green and blue LEDs on an external switch of some sort.
That actually sounds like an interesting project. Hmm...
>> As long as you code a single frontend to the db that is accessable from all apps via a standard emthod (like XML-RPC or SOAP) there is no reason to put that logic in the db. Again doing so is bad because it steals performance from the DB which is harder to replicate across multiple machines than some service written in Python, Java, or whatever. Also it's not a very good idea from a security point of view to allow direct access to your DB for every random app and user you might have on your network. Going through a proxy layer screens out the majority of paths an attack could come through.
Wouldn't the point of doing things in the database be adding a layer of abstraction between the client and the database? If you've properly coded the database end, you don't have to worry about what a client might do. Doing the processing client side is INSECURE, as a malicious person can much more easily discover what the client is doing database wise using a sniffer or debugger. Also a milicious client could be crafted to fiddle with a poorly implemented database end.
>> Transfering data between machines shouldn't be that big a task as gigabit (or better) ethernet is affordable and with some planning you can implement caching of many queries. (Example, it'd be stupid of/. to run the query that checks what stories are newest for every single hit from every single user. Caching would let them only rerun that query every few minutes.) Doing a lot of unneeded processing in the db will slow things down more than transfering a little more data.
First of all, your example doesn't apply to your initial statement. Regarding the example, any good database would cache a query that was executed 1000s of times in a row, so it shouldn't really be a concern.
More importantly, perhaps you've heard of something called latency?
You are saying that I can some how improve the performance of a database by sending my data to the client (of which I can't necessarily be certain of its speed, reliability or trustworthyness), process said data, and then have them send it back?
We're talking thousands to millions of times slower here, unless you have a "solution" to that pesky speed of light problem.
There's a difference between use and exploitation, and I'm sure that opinions will vary on this issue.
Although IBM is using many people's code by utilizing Linux and other OSS to make money, I would argue that IBM is not really making it by selling the software. Sure, the Linux is great for the functionality of their hardware, and the availibility of free, robust server software is a great selling point. But don't forget, the reason IBM did all that Linux marketing to make people and businesses feel OK about using Linux. IBM is still making their money building and supporting high-end hardware.
I would also venture to guess that the reason IBM chose to USE and ADVERTISE for Linux over a BSD variant was the rapid growth and momentum of the Linux "movement".
If software is still remains free including any changes that were made to it, it is very difficult to truly exploit.
...then why isn't one of the BSDs the more popular open-source OS?
I think it's clear that the reason most open-source developers are inspired to work on Linux is the knowledge that their work won't be commercially exploited.
1. The reason most people use (and develop for) Linux is the GNU License. They can guarantee their work will be available to everyone and not be commercially exploited.
2. The reason the "quality" of the code of Linux is not the same as BSD, is the sheer number of patches added to the kernel in a short period of time. If the BSD folks had to manage the same amount of additions, they'd be in the same situation.
Breaking a User Agreement is *not* illegal. It may be grounds for Apple to sue you. However, the agreement is not a law, and hence breaking it is not against the law.
It *may* be a violation of the DMCA, which is a law. In that respect, it may be illegal.
He's not getting the music free. It's preventing the DRM from being added to the file.
I think being anti-DRM is very Slashdot. Arbitrary software restrictions on things that prevent *potential* mis-use hinder everyones' rights. It hasn't worked well before (copy protection in the 80s) and it obviously doesn't work well now. More frustrating is the push for legislation to make it illegal to break DRM.
Though I am amused that Apple chose an inherently flawed method of having the client add the DRM, most likely in order to save server resources. Could adding the DRM on the server-side be that problematic?
Nintendo's latest handheld games device, the DS, also comes with a version of wi-fi built-in, and Mr Iwata said Nintendo will offer a free net connection service to DS owners, enabling them to play games against each other at no charge.
Sure, and it'd only cost 10x more to scale the same HDTV image over more pixels and appear exactly the same at an appropriate viewing distance.
Of course, if you prefer the blurry look to the blocky look when sticking your head up close to the TV, then I'm sure the extra money would be worth it.:)
Have you ever tried to get money back from Paypal?
If you receive something at all (even an empty box) your PayPal claim is categorically denied, as their Buyer Protection Policy does NOT cover the quality of goods received.
What would call "1 x IEEE 1394 port"? Umm... Oh yeah, FireWire.:)
And it would be truly amazing to have a FireWire port, and no USB ports. Though what's truly disappointing is no built-in wireless. I worry about PC Card wireless adapters getting snapped off, and if there's no USB... And really, the whole point of a laptop these days is wireless.
Feh, oh well, for less than $500 maybe it's worth it. Then again...:)
I had once propped the cover to a 1U rack-mount server against a wall while I was working on it. (The cover is essentially a 19" x 30" x 1/8" thick piece of steel.)
I turned around, bumped the cover with my foot, which proceeded to fall on my shin. Unfortunately, I was wearing shorts and the corner of the cover gouged a 2.5" x.25" chunk out of my leg.
Though, it's a really cool looking scar; I won't tell anyone how I got it.;)
> Yes, I know, there are people who claim to feel a difference, but none of them can do it in double-blind, controlled, tests.
This is not true.
First off, most people can hear sound up to 20khz. Some can even hear a couple khz beyond that.
Regardless, the reason 44khz or even 48khz can be insufficient is that they cannot accurately express a combination higher frequency signals.
In the >12khz range, a 44khz waveform compared to its original analog counterpart can be pretty ugly. Even at 96khz, it can still be a problem.
Many DVD-A (DVD Audio) discs offer 2-channel audio sampled at 192khz. There is a real reason for this. It's not just to sucker audiophiles into buying them. (There's over-priced hardware and Monster-brand cable for that.)
So instead, they'll just detonate the bomb when there's an excessive amount interference.
I wonder if they jam pager frequencies as well? Pagers seem like they'd be a much more sensible choice. Much longer battery life, coverage is EVERYWHERE, and they don't broadcast a traceable signal.
I love how the goverment spends my money on useless crap instead of trying to make fewer enemies by not being so heavy-handed with the rest of the world.
Slashdot Mirror
Or you can buy a set of red, green and blue gels and take 3 shots in B&W. Perhaps even mod the scanner to be able to slip them in without moving the object being scanned.
Or if the scanner's lamps are LED, mod it to use red, green and blue LEDs on an external switch of some sort.
That actually sounds like an interesting project. Hmm...
>> As long as you code a single frontend to the db that is accessable from all apps via a standard emthod (like XML-RPC or SOAP) there is no reason to put that logic in the db. Again doing so is bad because it steals performance from the DB which is harder to replicate across multiple machines than some service written in Python, Java, or whatever. Also it's not a very good idea from a security point of view to allow direct access to your DB for every random app and user you might have on your network. Going through a proxy layer screens out the majority of paths an attack could come through.
/. to run the query that checks what stories are newest for every single hit from every single user. Caching would let them only rerun that query every few minutes.) Doing a lot of unneeded processing in the db will slow things down more than transfering a little more data.
Wouldn't the point of doing things in the database be adding a layer of abstraction between the client and the database? If you've properly coded the database end, you don't have to worry about what a client might do. Doing the processing client side is INSECURE, as a malicious person can much more easily discover what the client is doing database wise using a sniffer or debugger. Also a milicious client could be crafted to fiddle with a poorly implemented database end.
>> Transfering data between machines shouldn't be that big a task as gigabit (or better) ethernet is affordable and with some planning you can implement caching of many queries. (Example, it'd be stupid of
First of all, your example doesn't apply to your initial statement. Regarding the example, any good database would cache a query that was executed 1000s of times in a row, so it shouldn't really be a concern.
More importantly, perhaps you've heard of something called latency?
You are saying that I can some how improve the performance of a database by sending my data to the client (of which I can't necessarily be certain of its speed, reliability or trustworthyness), process said data, and then have them send it back?
We're talking thousands to millions of times slower here, unless you have a "solution" to that pesky speed of light problem.
Nothing beats efficient file management (save perhaps sorting pictures with thumbnails) than using a CLI.
ThePirateBay.org, we hardly knew ye.
There's a difference between use and exploitation, and I'm sure that opinions will vary on this issue.
Although IBM is using many people's code by utilizing Linux and other OSS to make money, I would argue that IBM is not really making it by selling the software. Sure, the Linux is great for the functionality of their hardware, and the availibility of free, robust server software is a great selling point. But don't forget, the reason IBM did all that Linux marketing to make people and businesses feel OK about using Linux. IBM is still making their money building and supporting high-end hardware.
I would also venture to guess that the reason IBM chose to USE and ADVERTISE for Linux over a BSD variant was the rapid growth and momentum of the Linux "movement".
If software is still remains free including any changes that were made to it, it is very difficult to truly exploit.
...then why isn't one of the BSDs the more popular open-source OS?
I think it's clear that the reason most open-source developers are inspired to work on Linux is the knowledge that their work won't be commercially exploited.
1. The reason most people use (and develop for) Linux is the GNU License. They can guarantee their work will be available to everyone and not be commercially exploited.
2. The reason the "quality" of the code of Linux is not the same as BSD, is the sheer number of patches added to the kernel in a short period of time. If the BSD folks had to manage the same amount of additions, they'd be in the same situation.
Your forgetting that the domain names are not free.
GoDaddy has to pay ICANN for the domains. I'm not sure how much this is, but it is something.
Not that I disagree that GoDaddy definitely makes some money. Especially with all of the other crap charges they try to hit you with.
How is this Insightful? The author didn't even read the parent article.
The parent author was saying to boycott (ie don't pirate, don't watch) media with absurd copyright restrictions.
Sure, the parent's shot about Bush is unnecessary, but this reply is equally irrelevant and prejudicial.
Breaking a User Agreement is *not* illegal. It may be grounds for Apple to sue you. However, the agreement is not a law, and hence breaking it is not against the law.
It *may* be a violation of the DMCA, which is a law. In that respect, it may be illegal.
Did you read the blurb?
He's not getting the music free. It's preventing the DRM from being added to the file.
I think being anti-DRM is very Slashdot. Arbitrary software restrictions on things that prevent *potential* mis-use hinder everyones' rights. It hasn't worked well before (copy protection in the 80s) and it obviously doesn't work well now. More frustrating is the push for legislation to make it illegal to break DRM.
Though I am amused that Apple chose an inherently flawed method of having the client add the DRM, most likely in order to save server resources. Could adding the DRM on the server-side be that problematic?
From a previous comment:
From TFA:
Nintendo's latest handheld games device, the DS, also comes with a version of wi-fi built-in, and Mr Iwata said Nintendo will offer a free net connection service to DS owners, enabling them to play games against each other at no charge.
Sure, and it'd only cost 10x more to scale the same HDTV image over more pixels and appear exactly the same at an appropriate viewing distance.
:)
Of course, if you prefer the blurry look to the blocky look when sticking your head up close to the TV, then I'm sure the extra money would be worth it.
Actually, RAR has been around for over a decade.
:)
(Since 1993, according to WikiPedia.)
I remember investigating it back in my BBSing days.
Though I guess that makes it an even sorrier situation for AV companies.
I would assume they meant that it doesn't actually decompress the contents and scan the files it contains.
Have you ever tried to get money back from Paypal?
If you receive something at all (even an empty box) your PayPal claim is categorically denied, as their Buyer Protection Policy does NOT cover the quality of goods received.
Learned this one the hard way.
What would call "1 x IEEE 1394 port"? Umm... Oh yeah, FireWire. :)
:)
And it would be truly amazing to have a FireWire port, and no USB ports. Though what's truly disappointing is no built-in wireless. I worry about PC Card wireless adapters getting snapped off, and if there's no USB... And really, the whole point of a laptop these days is wireless.
Feh, oh well, for less than $500 maybe it's worth it. Then again...
** we = George W Bush***
*** George W Bush = Richard B Cheney
I had once propped the cover to a 1U rack-mount server against a wall while I was working on it. (The cover is essentially a 19" x 30" x 1/8" thick piece of steel.)
.25" chunk out of my leg.
;)
I turned around, bumped the cover with my foot, which proceeded to fall on my shin. Unfortunately, I was wearing shorts and the corner of the cover gouged a 2.5" x
Though, it's a really cool looking scar; I won't tell anyone how I got it.
> Yes, I know, there are people who claim to feel a difference, but none of them can do it in double-blind, controlled, tests.
This is not true.
First off, most people can hear sound up to 20khz. Some can even hear a couple khz beyond that.
Regardless, the reason 44khz or even 48khz can be insufficient is that they cannot accurately express a combination higher frequency signals.
In the >12khz range, a 44khz waveform compared to its original analog counterpart can be pretty ugly. Even at 96khz, it can still be a problem.
Many DVD-A (DVD Audio) discs offer 2-channel audio sampled at 192khz. There is a real reason for this. It's not just to sucker audiophiles into buying them. (There's over-priced hardware and Monster-brand cable for that.)
Hmm... 3Mb AVI * 100k Downloads = Uhoh (Not to mention the page views.)
:)
I hope his ISP doesn't charge too much.
I can just see the net loss of this whole endeavor sky rocketing further. I hope it wasn't his "friend" who submitted this one.
Ugh...
I'm not sure if its worse that this comment might be serious or that someone actually modded it Insightful.
So instead, they'll just detonate the bomb when there's an excessive amount interference.
I wonder if they jam pager frequencies as well? Pagers seem like they'd be a much more sensible choice. Much longer battery life, coverage is EVERYWHERE, and they don't broadcast a traceable signal.
I love how the goverment spends my money on useless crap instead of trying to make fewer enemies by not being so heavy-handed with the rest of the world.
You watch Voyager to see Kate Mulgrew ??
:)
Are you mad?
I can see if it were Jeri Ryan, but seesh!
Hmm...
The reason that won't happen:
To be a marytr, you need to have people on your side in the first place.
No one really cares who they are now; Even fewer will care once they're gone.