These cameras are used for slowing things down. You shoot at, say, 600 frames per second and then you can slow it down by 20 times to 30 fps. Watching the video at 30 fps then shows a very smooth slow-motion view of what's happening 20 times faster. One of the examples he gave was in process manufacturing - if you have an assembly line that's jamming at a point, and you can't see why as it's all happening too quickly, shoot it at a high frame rate, slow it down and go over it frame by frame if you need to. Either that or make videos of stuff breaking, getting shot or having water splashed on it and put it on youtube. People love seeing that stuff in slow motion.
I'm going to guess that you're joking here. Cars already need to be regularly filled up with fluids of all sorts and people seem to be able remember to do that, granted with the help of a small gauge in the instrument cluster.
What's "purely digital" about a LCD? For a start, there's nothing in this article talking about VGA. I'm talking about DisplayPort (as is the linked article) which has a signal path from the GPU to the monitor (and if you want to be pedantic about it, the DisplayPort interface on the rear of the monitor) that is purely digital. However, if you really want to take it to it's illogical extreme, even the digital signalling used by DisplayPort is, at it's heart, analogue voltages travelling down a bunch of copper wires.
Either way, the signal path, the communications channel, that still has things like a vertical blanking interval and runs between the GPU and the electronics in the monitor is purely digital.
I haven't RTFA, but from what I understand of it, it's not syncing the output from the graphics card to the vertical blanking interval on the monitor, it's the other way around. It's running the monitor at a variable frame rate so that if you're running at (say) 60Hz refresh and the next frame takes 1/60th second + a tiny bit, the monitor can hold off painting the new frame until the data is there to paint it, rather than waiting for 2/60th second before displaying an updated frame. Or, if the next frame is ready early, and the monitor can do so, it can paint the new frame early - so the monitor isn't running at 60Hz, it's running in sync with the output of the graphics card.
It's all in the luck of the draw. When you don't have any logging of this, you've got no idea how long people have been poking at this and literally no idea what anyone has made off with.
Yes, I thought that was the case, but I still got all sorts of junk subdomains registered... Maybe there was a problem with the way my domains were registered, I don't know. Either way, I moved them away...
Yep, I found that too. I had a privately registered domain with afraid.org that still allowed other people to create their own hostnames in that domain. These hostnames were then used to spread malware with the result that I was receiving notices from Google saying my web site was compromised.
I had, say, www.example.com and then others were making asd34ghjb5fbs.example.com and using that to spread malware. Google saw that I owned example.com and so I received the notifications. I'd log into afraid.org and shut down all the hostnames that I didn't create, but they kept getting made even though I had private registration on my domain name.
I've had problems with afraid.org where a privately registered domain I held allowed other people to create their own hostnames in that domain. These hostnames were then used to spread malware with the result that I was receiving notices from Google saying my web site was compromised.
I had, say, www.example.com and then others were making asd34ghjb5fbs.example.com and using that to spread malware. Google saw that I owned example.com and so I received the notifications. I'd log into afraid.org and shut down all the hostnames that I didn't create, but they kept getting made even though I had private registration on my domain name.
Some people find TOR using a Chrome browser. Should they have the authority to remove that too only to tell you about it later in a blog?
No, of course not. Old, known-bad versions of TOR that have numerous exploits active in the wild are removed. Not Chrome browser as it's not malicious software.
If a PC was infected with Sefnit and had the signature old version of Tor in the hidden location, Tor was removed because it's logically the case that Tor was just part of the virus payload. Because of the unique install directory, there wasn't even a remote chance for false positives. Publicly available tools that can be used for good or bad are hijacked by viruses all the time, and it's never a surprise if an anti-virus removes that tool when the virus specific files are removed.
On any Mac in your office, running 10.8 (Mountain Lion) or 10.9 (Mavericks) purchase (for $20 or so), download and install the OS X Server app. Turn on the Caching service. Problem solved for Apple devices.
The server then registers itself with Apple, they see the registration coming from your IP, so when further devices from that IP address request a software update, these machines are pointed to your internal Caching server. Then, when a device (or a Mac) tries to download an update or purchase something from the App store, it will come from the persistent cache in preference to the WAN.
Sorry to disagree, but I feel there SHOULD be a password hint field. I also, however, feel that it should be encrypted. And that it shouldn't be allowed to contain the password.
This is a huge part of the problem. Just about all security researchers (white or black hat) will have an account with Adobe - even if it's using a throwaway email address. They know what the email address is, they know what their password is, so can begin to mount a known-plaintext attack against the data in the database.
Unless Adobe are using a different encryption key for every password in the database (unlikely as if they were this careful, they'd not encrypt them and instead hash and salt them) then discovering the key for one password will reveal the rest.
You are probably either the victim of a malware infection, or you're torrenting too much. If a machine on your network has been properly pwned (and this is a lot more likely than you being the target of a DDOS) then running AV on top of the OS most likely won't find the malware... Download and burn the Kaspersky Rescue CD, boot off that (a known-good OS) and scan your machines. Report back how much malware it found that everything else missed. If you're participating in a DDOS (or otherwise maxing out your upstream bandwidth - eg torrents) then uploading at the maximum throughput will have the side effect of dropping your download speed to the same as your upload speed.
There's one area where renewables can win out, and the space they take up doesn't make any difference. If a law were to be passed where every new house had to have, say, a 5kW photovoltaic system on the roof, it would take up zero additional space, would be cheaper to implement at the design stage of a new house and all new houses would be largely self-sufficient for power, with the ability to feed extra power into the grid. As a bonus, on those really hot (and, coincidentally, sunny) days where everyone has their AC on, they are the kinds of days where a distributed power generation system like this will easily be able to cope with the additional load.
Whilst the execution engine in an x86 chip may be RISC (or RISC-like) code running on the chip is well and truly CISC - programs running on x86 have no access to the low-level RISC features.
I can't verify the reasons you've given, but I can back up those failure rates. When SSDs were still crazy expensive, OCZ were at the more affordable end of the range. It got to be that they failed so much whenever I put in an RMA for one with my supplier they wouldn't even ask for details or attempt to troubleshoot to verify the fault. Me: "Hi, I've got an SSD for a warranty return" Them: "OK, have you got the serial number or the original invoice?" Me: "It's an OCZ" Them: "Oh, no worries, we'll courier a new one out to you"
Since prices have dropped, I now only use Intel and have had a grand total of one failure, in a 4 year old 80GB disk.
No consumer ISP in Australia caps your speed. You get an ADSL2 connection and it's as fast as the line can go, depending on your distance to the exchange etc. Up to 24Mbs. You get a DOCSIS2 cable connection and it's up to 30Mbs. You get a DOCSIS3 cable connection and it's up to 100Mbs.
With respect to your download quota however, you want to download more, either you pay more or you move to a cheaper tier 2 or 3 ISP with some kind of "unlimited" plan.
If it's not possible for you to hit your cap during the billing period, then why would you have a cap in the first place? I'm on 100Mbs cable. I get 200GB/month. I'd much rather this than be limited to 0.6Mbs which would would render me physically incapable of hitting my cap in a month. If I want to download more (remember that this data transfer isn't free to my ISP) then I can pay more. Simple economics. My speed however is completely uncapped - it's as fast as the DOCSIS3 network equipment is capable of going.
There is a difference between the (patented) arithmetic coders used in JBIG and the later JBIG2 standards. JBIG uses the QM-Coder and JBIG2 uses MQ-Coder. They are not technically the same. It is believed that patents for the QM-Coder are owned by three organaizations (IBM, Mitsubishi, and Lucent) and patents for the MQ-Coder are owned by two organizations (IBM and Mitsubishi) .
Free licenses should be available for MQ-Coder (used in JBIG2 and JPEG2000) although a license should still be requested, but one-time payments to three organizations are necessary for QM-Coder (used in JBIG and JPEG-Arithmetic). At one stage these were of the order of a single one time license fee of 5000 US$, but the relevant companies should be contacted for their current pricing. If these have changed substantially, we would appreciate it if you could inform the webmaster so that the site can be updated accordingly.
Our understanding is that the license conditions of these coders are limited to the case where products are fully compatible to the standards. However, if it looks like you are within the academic sector and if you implement the coder for purely academic purposes (not for commercial use), you may be able to get free licenses.
Yes, the mistake was mine. I did mean to say JBIG2 which is, as you say, lossy. It's also been an ISO standard since 2001.
Re: their lossless mode - if they can mathematically guarantee that the output == the input under all input conditions, then we're safe with it. If it uses pattern matching and substitution (like the lossy mode does) then all bets are off.
Yes, faxes? Remember them? They're still widely used in many industries today. In fact, I applied for an Apple Developer account in a company name not too long ago and, unlike with an individual account, there is some paperwork involved that Apple insist must be faxed to them. Apparently it's more secure. Anyway, I'm not ranting about that issue today, but more the widespread use of faxes in the area of Law.
Lawyers love faxes. They fax everything they can. A lot of them are using email more and more these days, but faxes are still a critical part of their business.
Most faxes can use JBIG compression. High-end faxes use JBIG2 compression. This compression is what's been blamed in this Xerox issue. How many faxes have been received over the years that have been subject to silent modification of the information?
It's not hard to imagine a legal situation where just one number modified on a page could prove to be very expensive...
You only need to look at a modern photocopier to see that this is a highly plausible method of operation. There is no direct optical path between the glass on the top of the copier and the drum that is used to print the image.
Or, see what happens when you put a document in the feeder and ask for 10 copies. You get them all nicely collated.
Older analogue copiers can not do this, without a collating output tray, as they can only directly make a copy of whatever's on the glass. In a digital copier (just about every copier you're likely to see today) it scans the entire document into memory (often compressing it so that you can fit bigger documents in the limited memory) and then prints the multiple copies with all the pages in the right order.
Yes, I used to work for a copier company and I have direct technical knowledge of how this stuff works.
Invent some half-assed lossy compressor, such as JBIG which is an ISO standard that was ratified so long ago that the patents applying to it have all expired?
One thing of note is that JBIG is very commonly used in higher-end faxes as it's significantly quicker than previous lossless compression algorithms. I wonder how many faxes have been silently modified in transit by this compression?
And, before you ask, there are many industries where faxes are still heavily used, such as in law - where silent modification of numbers in a table could prove to be very expensive...
Slashdot Mirror
Can't tell if serious or trolling.
These cameras are used for slowing things down. You shoot at, say, 600 frames per second and then you can slow it down by 20 times to 30 fps. Watching the video at 30 fps then shows a very smooth slow-motion view of what's happening 20 times faster. One of the examples he gave was in process manufacturing - if you have an assembly line that's jamming at a point, and you can't see why as it's all happening too quickly, shoot it at a high frame rate, slow it down and go over it frame by frame if you need to. Either that or make videos of stuff breaking, getting shot or having water splashed on it and put it on youtube. People love seeing that stuff in slow motion.
I'm going to guess that you're joking here. Cars already need to be regularly filled up with fluids of all sorts and people seem to be able remember to do that, granted with the help of a small gauge in the instrument cluster.
What's "purely digital" about a LCD? For a start, there's nothing in this article talking about VGA. I'm talking about DisplayPort (as is the linked article) which has a signal path from the GPU to the monitor (and if you want to be pedantic about it, the DisplayPort interface on the rear of the monitor) that is purely digital. However, if you really want to take it to it's illogical extreme, even the digital signalling used by DisplayPort is, at it's heart, analogue voltages travelling down a bunch of copper wires.
Either way, the signal path, the communications channel, that still has things like a vertical blanking interval and runs between the GPU and the electronics in the monitor is purely digital.
Yeah, I always found it strange that even a purely digital flat panel monitor still "emulates" a vertical refresh interval signal...
I haven't RTFA, but from what I understand of it, it's not syncing the output from the graphics card to the vertical blanking interval on the monitor, it's the other way around. It's running the monitor at a variable frame rate so that if you're running at (say) 60Hz refresh and the next frame takes 1/60th second + a tiny bit, the monitor can hold off painting the new frame until the data is there to paint it, rather than waiting for 2/60th second before displaying an updated frame. Or, if the next frame is ready early, and the monitor can do so, it can paint the new frame early - so the monitor isn't running at 60Hz, it's running in sync with the output of the graphics card.
For some reason I can't get to that page (DDOS'd? Taken offline?)
Here's the results on their blog:
http://blog.cloudflare.com/the...
Private key grabbed. Game over.
One successful attempt took >2.5M requests over a day. Second successful attempt was something like 100k requests.
http://blog.cloudflare.com/the...
It's all in the luck of the draw. When you don't have any logging of this, you've got no idea how long people have been poking at this and literally no idea what anyone has made off with.
Yes, I thought that was the case, but I still got all sorts of junk subdomains registered... Maybe there was a problem with the way my domains were registered, I don't know. Either way, I moved them away...
Yep, I found that too. I had a privately registered domain with afraid.org that still allowed other people to create their own hostnames in that domain. These hostnames were then used to spread malware with the result that I was receiving notices from Google saying my web site was compromised.
I had, say, www.example.com and then others were making asd34ghjb5fbs.example.com and using that to spread malware. Google saw that I owned example.com and so I received the notifications. I'd log into afraid.org and shut down all the hostnames that I didn't create, but they kept getting made even though I had private registration on my domain name.
I've had problems with afraid.org where a privately registered domain I held allowed other people to create their own hostnames in that domain. These hostnames were then used to spread malware with the result that I was receiving notices from Google saying my web site was compromised.
I had, say, www.example.com and then others were making asd34ghjb5fbs.example.com and using that to spread malware. Google saw that I owned example.com and so I received the notifications. I'd log into afraid.org and shut down all the hostnames that I didn't create, but they kept getting made even though I had private registration on my domain name.
Some people find TOR using a Chrome browser. Should they have the authority to remove that too only to tell you about it later in a blog?
No, of course not. Old, known-bad versions of TOR that have numerous exploits active in the wild are removed. Not Chrome browser as it's not malicious software.
To quote another poster a few threads down
If a PC was infected with Sefnit and had the signature old version of Tor in the hidden location, Tor was removed because it's logically the case that Tor was just part of the virus payload. Because of the unique install directory, there wasn't even a remote chance for false positives. Publicly available tools that can be used for good or bad are hijacked by viruses all the time, and it's never a surprise if an anti-virus removes that tool when the virus specific files are removed.
On any Mac in your office, running 10.8 (Mountain Lion) or 10.9 (Mavericks) purchase (for $20 or so), download and install the OS X Server app.
Turn on the Caching service. Problem solved for Apple devices.
The server then registers itself with Apple, they see the registration coming from your IP, so when further devices from that IP address request a software update, these machines are pointed to your internal Caching server. Then, when a device (or a Mac) tries to download an update or purchase something from the App store, it will come from the persistent cache in preference to the WAN.
Sorry to disagree, but I feel there SHOULD be a password hint field. I also, however, feel that it should be encrypted. And that it shouldn't be allowed to contain the password.
And how should it be decrypted?
This is a huge part of the problem. Just about all security researchers (white or black hat) will have an account with Adobe - even if it's using a throwaway email address. They know what the email address is, they know what their password is, so can begin to mount a known-plaintext attack against the data in the database.
Unless Adobe are using a different encryption key for every password in the database (unlikely as if they were this careful, they'd not encrypt them and instead hash and salt them) then discovering the key for one password will reveal the rest.
You are probably either the victim of a malware infection, or you're torrenting too much. If a machine on your network has been properly pwned (and this is a lot more likely than you being the target of a DDOS) then running AV on top of the OS most likely won't find the malware...
Download and burn the Kaspersky Rescue CD, boot off that (a known-good OS) and scan your machines. Report back how much malware it found that everything else missed.
If you're participating in a DDOS (or otherwise maxing out your upstream bandwidth - eg torrents) then uploading at the maximum throughput will have the side effect of dropping your download speed to the same as your upload speed.
There's one area where renewables can win out, and the space they take up doesn't make any difference.
If a law were to be passed where every new house had to have, say, a 5kW photovoltaic system on the roof, it would take up zero additional space, would be cheaper to implement at the design stage of a new house and all new houses would be largely self-sufficient for power, with the ability to feed extra power into the grid.
As a bonus, on those really hot (and, coincidentally, sunny) days where everyone has their AC on, they are the kinds of days where a distributed power generation system like this will easily be able to cope with the additional load.
Whilst the execution engine in an x86 chip may be RISC (or RISC-like) code running on the chip is well and truly CISC - programs running on x86 have no access to the low-level RISC features.
I can't verify the reasons you've given, but I can back up those failure rates.
When SSDs were still crazy expensive, OCZ were at the more affordable end of the range. It got to be that they failed so much whenever I put in an RMA for one with my supplier they wouldn't even ask for details or attempt to troubleshoot to verify the fault.
Me: "Hi, I've got an SSD for a warranty return"
Them: "OK, have you got the serial number or the original invoice?"
Me: "It's an OCZ"
Them: "Oh, no worries, we'll courier a new one out to you"
Since prices have dropped, I now only use Intel and have had a grand total of one failure, in a 4 year old 80GB disk.
No consumer ISP in Australia caps your speed. You get an ADSL2 connection and it's as fast as the line can go, depending on your distance to the exchange etc. Up to 24Mbs. You get a DOCSIS2 cable connection and it's up to 30Mbs. You get a DOCSIS3 cable connection and it's up to 100Mbs.
With respect to your download quota however, you want to download more, either you pay more or you move to a cheaper tier 2 or 3 ISP with some kind of "unlimited" plan.
If it's not possible for you to hit your cap during the billing period, then why would you have a cap in the first place?
I'm on 100Mbs cable. I get 200GB/month. I'd much rather this than be limited to 0.6Mbs which would would render me physically incapable of hitting my cap in a month. If I want to download more (remember that this data transfer isn't free to my ISP) then I can pay more. Simple economics. My speed however is completely uncapped - it's as fast as the DOCSIS3 network equipment is capable of going.
You can generally pay some amount and get an ISO document - for the JBIG2 standard document I think it was something like 180 CHF.
According to JPEG (the standards group, not the file format)
Yes, the mistake was mine. I did mean to say JBIG2 which is, as you say, lossy. It's also been an ISO standard since 2001.
Re: their lossless mode - if they can mathematically guarantee that the output == the input under all input conditions, then we're safe with it. If it uses pattern matching and substitution (like the lossy mode does) then all bets are off.
I wonder why ImageMagick doesn't support JBIG2 - from the wikipedia article, Patents for JBIG2 are owned by IBM and Mitsubishi. Free licenses should be available after a request. JBIG and JBIG2 patents are not the same.
Yes, faxes? Remember them?
They're still widely used in many industries today. In fact, I applied for an Apple Developer account in a company name not too long ago and, unlike with an individual account, there is some paperwork involved that Apple insist must be faxed to them. Apparently it's more secure. Anyway, I'm not ranting about that issue today, but more the widespread use of faxes in the area of Law.
Lawyers love faxes. They fax everything they can. A lot of them are using email more and more these days, but faxes are still a critical part of their business.
Most faxes can use JBIG compression. High-end faxes use JBIG2 compression. This compression is what's been blamed in this Xerox issue. How many faxes have been received over the years that have been subject to silent modification of the information?
It's not hard to imagine a legal situation where just one number modified on a page could prove to be very expensive...
You only need to look at a modern photocopier to see that this is a highly plausible method of operation.
There is no direct optical path between the glass on the top of the copier and the drum that is used to print the image.
Or, see what happens when you put a document in the feeder and ask for 10 copies. You get them all nicely collated.
Older analogue copiers can not do this, without a collating output tray, as they can only directly make a copy of whatever's on the glass.
In a digital copier (just about every copier you're likely to see today) it scans the entire document into memory (often compressing it so that you can fit bigger documents in the limited memory) and then prints the multiple copies with all the pages in the right order.
Yes, I used to work for a copier company and I have direct technical knowledge of how this stuff works.
Invent some half-assed lossy compressor, such as JBIG which is an ISO standard that was ratified so long ago that the patents applying to it have all expired?
One thing of note is that JBIG is very commonly used in higher-end faxes as it's significantly quicker than previous lossless compression algorithms. I wonder how many faxes have been silently modified in transit by this compression?
And, before you ask, there are many industries where faxes are still heavily used, such as in law - where silent modification of numbers in a table could prove to be very expensive...