I dare say none do that. If you speed-up the video, you also have to resample the sound, and hopefully pitch-shift it as well.
I'll admit I've never seen one that does do it, but neither of those steps is particularly difficult, and it would be a better approach to take than the one my player seems to take (3:2 pulldown to take the framerate to 29.97 and then drop frames to get to 25).
So why don't you actually read the paper? It has quite a good explanation of what they did. FWIW, it wasn't a clear win for software; there were things the hardware implementation did better, but they're things that don't seem to be quite so important for real-world applications.
Because if you actually RTFA it shows that the hardware virtualization is faster for some benchmarks (e.g. processing system calls) and slower for others (e.g. performing I/O requests or page-table modifications); if you combine the best features of each you should be able to get a virtual machine that is faster than both.
From everything I've read about hypervisors including the Power CPU hypervisors from IBM (which have been functional for years) and the original Cambridge paper that created Xen, Hypervisors really outperform software solutions.
Note that Xen's original hypervisor implementation *is* a software solution -- it relies on rewriting the guest operating system kernel so that the kind of hardware traps that VMware are talking about here are unnecessary. Note that it worked flawlessly before the virtualisation technology (eg. Intel VT) that VMware is testing was avialable.
Fast track isn't small claims. There are three tracks, with fast track being the middle ground, and would probably be what most of these claims would be put through under. There are no statutary damages for copyright infringement under the UK law, so the ridiculous claims that RIAA have made wouldn't be tenable. They could only claim for estimated loss of revenues, and it would be incredibly hard for them to justify more than a few thousand pounds. And if they grossly overinflated the amount they claimed, this would make it difficult or impossible for them to claim costs in cases they won but the judge decided the amount they asked for was too high.
Play with the numbers 5000 and 224 until you have an output file that'll fit on your 4.7gb disc. The formula is (number_of_seconds * total_of_bitrates) / 8 / 1024 / 1024 = megabytes of output. You'll need it to be less than about 4400. Aim for 4200 if you don't want to have to reencode if it runs too high, because ffmpeg is a variable-rate encoder that just aims for the target you specify and often seems to overestimate how much data it can put in.
DVDAuthor's a great way of mastering the DVDs and learning to produce menus with it can be fun. Both of these programs work fine on Windows.
First, even if your program allows you to fill in an arbitrary number for frame rate, it is not a number, but a binary choice. You have the option for 25 in Europe, or 30 in America. Your TV cannot do anything but 30 FPS, so will have to double-display one frame per second if your source material claims to be 29.
Not true. You can have 24fps and the player will use telecine (interlacing) to produce a smooth playback. This is the way it is done for most commercial DVDs.
I definitely agree with the audio. He needs to quite using uncompressed audio and use MP2 at the minimum and preferably some form of dolby if possible.
For NTSC discs, that should be Dolby AC3 at a minimum, as MP2 is an optional part of the spec that might not be supported on all players. For PAL players, AC3 is optional and MP2 is mandatory. Fucked up, but true.
The data on the disc is encoded at 23.976 fps. This saves you quite a bit of disc space.
Telecine is used *by an NTSC player* to convert to 29.97. Unless you're playing back on a PC, at which point it will actually play at 23.976 without performing a telecine conversion. A PAL player might choose instead to simply speed up playback by 4% to get the required 25fps there (although I don't think most do this, it is certainly a possibility). There are probably also digital projection units that will play back without performing the conversion.
From reading the advisory it appears as if the malicious party would have to be on a subnet between the DNS client and the DNS server
As I read it they must be either able to intercept an existing DNS request and send a forged response (which is the condition you're quoting) *or* be the target of the request in the first place (which could be easily arranged by sending an HTML e-mail). Unfortunately, MS are so sparse on technical details it's hard to tell. It might also be the case that the request would have to be for one of the strange types of record they list in the next section, although the advisory doesn't actually go as far as to state that. Just that filtering those on the inbound connection would help prevent it.
I only read the first two, but both sound like reasonable positions to me: the first is a free speech issue, and if these people want to brand their businesses in non-English languages, why shouldn't they? The second isn't: the student's right to free speech doesn't include a right to a free platform. She could have continued speaking after the microphone was switched off if she wanted.
At least in the US it's not common for the judge to award legal fees; it has a chilling effect on poor people suing rich people. It's SOP in Great Britian, IIRC, but IANAL.
It is. It also doesn't seem to have any such chilling effect, really. You just have to put a limit on how much the costs award can be, and then it doesn't matter how much resources the guy you're up against has... you know how much you stand to lose.
* Cases for under £5,000 are usually allocated to the small claims track. Costs are strictly limited (there's a table of what you can charge for different things, like £100 for issuing the claim, £50 for requesting judgement, £150 for turning up to a trial, etc.). * Larger claims go the the fast track. Costs are still limited, but there are exceptions for complex cases., expert witness fees, etc. Judges are required to pay attention to the litigant's financial situations when determining costs. * Larger still and you go to the multi track. Now you get to charge actual costs, rather than stuff off a table. But only if the claiming is for over (I think) £25,000. And if the claimant wins but is awarded less, he only gets the costs for a lower track, I believe.
So the costs can't really get disproportionate unless you're talking about really valuable cases. And even then, the award is only made if it is "in the interests of justice".
don't permit corporation to sue citizen, but permit corp vs corp and citizen vs citizen.
Err... so if I decide not to pay the money I owe to my bank, there's fuck all they can do about it? But if they decide not to give me the money they owe to me, I just incorporate and sue them?
I can see that economy lasting a few hours. Maybe. If people are particularly slow on the uptake.
How can this possibly be reasonable. If you unjustly imprison me, precisely why should I pay for the privelege of having been in jail when I had comitted no crime?
You're looking at it the wrong way. The way that the people who think this is reasonable see it (and I don't, but I do see their viewpoint) is this:
If I falsely imprison you, it is reasonable for me to pay you compensation which includes a payment for the maximum amount of money you could have saved during the time you were imprisoned: this is calculated by taking the highest salary you could plausibly have earned during the time and deducting the lowest living expenses you would plausibly have spent. Then, on top of this, I add compensation for emotional anguish, loss of liberty, and any traumatic experiences you may have suffered while imprisoned. The total figure tends to work out to around £60,000 - £100,000 (~$100,000 - $180,000 US) per annum.
There's a rather large difference between "expecting people to pay board after wrongful conviction" and "deducting reasonable saved living expenses from expected income as a step in calculating compensation to pay out after wrongful conviction".
Further, in the UK it's normal practice for costs to be awarded against the losing party in a lawsuit. That's not all positive since even if you're careful about your costs an opponent with plentiful resources may spend hundreds of thousands on legal costs and if you lose (and you can never be sure in a lawsuit) you can end up liable. So this also acts as a deterrent to "the small guy", but perhaps less so than in the US?
Actually, the costs are generally limited by the civil procedures. E.g., in a claim for up to £10,000 (which is the category I believe the case discussed here would fall under) the maximum award of costs on the "fast-track" claim track would be £500 trial costs, plus £110 commencement costs. Hardly an offputting possibility, yet there are many lawyers who are perfectly willing to represent people on the basis that they will get this money if they succeed. I don't really see much downside for this practice.
Plus the UK legal system can turn quite nasty if they think you're playing games with them like the RIAA do in America.
That's true. Apart from awarding anything to the defendant that they feel are "in the interests of justice", a judge can order that you be entered into the register of vexatious litigants, after which you are required to seek permission before bringing further claims. I suspect the BPI would seriously consider the possibility of this happening before embarcing on claims like the one discussed in this brief.
In England they bill people falsely imprisoned for their room and board
Really? In cases I've heard about it's always the other way around, for instance this case where a woman was falsely imprisoned for a month and was paid £5,000 compensation.
When I saw the list of patches my machine had downloaded the other day, I thought "this one's going to be trouble. Maybe we'll see a blaster-style worm based on this one."
I mean, DNS client? The best the "mitigation" section of the advisory can say is that an attacker would have to make your machine issue a DNS request to a domain they controlled in order to exploit it. Which wouldn't exactly be hard, would it?
When the iMac was first introduced, people went gaga over the fact that the monitor, computer, and speakers were all in one enclosure, thus eliminating the need for two bulky pieces of hardware and multiple cables
Maybe the submitter did. I looked at it and said "What a ridiculous design. If I decide to upgrade to a large monitor later, I have to replace the entire computer."
Also note that that's 56Mb/s half-duplex, compared to 1Gb/s full-duplex (at least as long as you're using either a direct machine-machine connection or a switch).
Not to mention the fact that one of the reasons CDs/DVDs are the size they are (12cm) because it's the widest that can fit in a standard 5 1/4" drive bay (about 14.5cm) with enough space left at the sides for a tray open/close mechanism. These new disks are the same size as a 5 1/4" disk (13cm), which leaves just enough space at the side for guide mechanisms. So we're going to have to push these disks in like floppies. Hope they're not susceptible to scratching.
Sure, because the left hates human rights and privacy, and it wants nothing more than to spy on ordinary Americans who haven't committed a crime. Oh, wait.:)
Slashdot Mirror
I dare say none do that. If you speed-up the video, you also have to resample the sound, and hopefully pitch-shift it as well.
I'll admit I've never seen one that does do it, but neither of those steps is particularly difficult, and it would be a better approach to take than the one my player seems to take (3:2 pulldown to take the framerate to 29.97 and then drop frames to get to 25).
So why don't you actually read the paper? It has quite a good explanation of what they did. FWIW, it wasn't a clear win for software; there were things the hardware implementation did better, but they're things that don't seem to be quite so important for real-world applications.
Because if you actually RTFA it shows that the hardware virtualization is faster for some benchmarks (e.g. processing system calls) and slower for others (e.g. performing I/O requests or page-table modifications); if you combine the best features of each you should be able to get a virtual machine that is faster than both.
From everything I've read about hypervisors including the Power CPU hypervisors from IBM (which have been functional for years) and the original Cambridge paper that created Xen, Hypervisors really outperform software solutions.
Note that Xen's original hypervisor implementation *is* a software solution -- it relies on rewriting the guest operating system kernel so that the kind of hardware traps that VMware are talking about here are unnecessary. Note that it worked flawlessly before the virtualisation technology (eg. Intel VT) that VMware is testing was avialable.
Fast track isn't small claims. There are three tracks, with fast track being the middle ground, and would probably be what most of these claims would be put through under. There are no statutary damages for copyright infringement under the UK law, so the ridiculous claims that RIAA have made wouldn't be tenable. They could only claim for estimated loss of revenues, and it would be incredibly hard for them to justify more than a few thousand pounds. And if they grossly overinflated the amount they claimed, this would make it difficult or impossible for them to claim costs in cases they won but the judge decided the amount they asked for was too high.
ffmpeg -i INPUT.avi -target ntsc-dvd 01.mpg
I'd recommend, as a minimum:
ffmpeg -i INPUT.avi -async 1 -hq -b 5000 -ab 224 -target ntsc-dvd -y output.vob
Play with the numbers 5000 and 224 until you have an output file that'll fit on your 4.7gb disc. The formula is (number_of_seconds * total_of_bitrates) / 8 / 1024 / 1024 = megabytes of output. You'll need it to be less than about 4400. Aim for 4200 if you don't want to have to reencode if it runs too high, because ffmpeg is a variable-rate encoder that just aims for the target you specify and often seems to overestimate how much data it can put in.
DVDAuthor's a great way of mastering the DVDs and learning to produce menus with it can be fun. Both of these programs work fine on Windows.
First, even if your program allows you to fill in an arbitrary number for frame rate, it is not a number, but a binary choice. You have the option for 25 in Europe, or 30 in America. Your TV cannot do anything but 30 FPS, so will have to double-display one frame per second if your source material claims to be 29.
Not true. You can have 24fps and the player will use telecine (interlacing) to produce a smooth playback. This is the way it is done for most commercial DVDs.
I definitely agree with the audio. He needs to quite using uncompressed audio and use MP2 at the minimum and preferably some form of dolby if possible.
For NTSC discs, that should be Dolby AC3 at a minimum, as MP2 is an optional part of the spec that might not be supported on all players. For PAL players, AC3 is optional and MP2 is mandatory. Fucked up, but true.
The data on the disc is encoded at 23.976 fps. This saves you quite a bit of disc space.
Telecine is used *by an NTSC player* to convert to 29.97. Unless you're playing back on a PC, at which point it will actually play at 23.976 without performing a telecine conversion. A PAL player might choose instead to simply speed up playback by 4% to get the required 25fps there (although I don't think most do this, it is certainly a possibility). There are probably also digital projection units that will play back without performing the conversion.
No, no. Consumer is good. Think "consumer protection law".
From reading the advisory it appears as if the malicious party would have to be on a subnet between the DNS client and the DNS server
As I read it they must be either able to intercept an existing DNS request and send a forged response (which is the condition you're quoting) *or* be the target of the request in the first place (which could be easily arranged by sending an HTML e-mail). Unfortunately, MS are so sparse on technical details it's hard to tell. It might also be the case that the request would have to be for one of the strange types of record they list in the next section, although the advisory doesn't actually go as far as to state that. Just that filtering those on the inbound connection would help prevent it.
I only read the first two, but both sound like reasonable positions to me: the first is a free speech issue, and if these people want to brand their businesses in non-English languages, why shouldn't they? The second isn't: the student's right to free speech doesn't include a right to a free platform. She could have continued speaking after the microphone was switched off if she wanted.
At least in the US it's not common for the judge to award legal fees; it has a chilling effect on poor people suing rich people. It's SOP in Great Britian, IIRC, but IANAL.
It is. It also doesn't seem to have any such chilling effect, really. You just have to put a limit on how much the costs award can be, and then it doesn't matter how much resources the guy you're up against has... you know how much you stand to lose.
I may not be a lawyer, but those lawyer are no proof readers either.
;)
You mean proofreaders.
The UK solution to this issue is:
* Cases for under £5,000 are usually allocated to the small claims track. Costs are strictly limited (there's a table of what you can charge for different things, like £100 for issuing the claim, £50 for requesting judgement, £150 for turning up to a trial, etc.).
* Larger claims go the the fast track. Costs are still limited, but there are exceptions for complex cases., expert witness fees, etc. Judges are required to pay attention to the litigant's financial situations when determining costs.
* Larger still and you go to the multi track. Now you get to charge actual costs, rather than stuff off a table. But only if the claiming is for over (I think) £25,000. And if the claimant wins but is awarded less, he only gets the costs for a lower track, I believe.
So the costs can't really get disproportionate unless you're talking about really valuable cases. And even then, the award is only made if it is "in the interests of justice".
don't permit corporation to sue citizen, but permit corp vs corp and citizen vs citizen.
Err... so if I decide not to pay the money I owe to my bank, there's fuck all they can do about it? But if they decide not to give me the money they owe to me, I just incorporate and sue them?
I can see that economy lasting a few hours. Maybe. If people are particularly slow on the uptake.
How can this possibly be reasonable. If you unjustly imprison me, precisely why should I pay for the privelege of having been in jail when I had comitted no crime?
You're looking at it the wrong way. The way that the people who think this is reasonable see it (and I don't, but I do see their viewpoint) is this:
If I falsely imprison you, it is reasonable for me to pay you compensation which includes a payment for the maximum amount of money you could have saved during the time you were imprisoned: this is calculated by taking the highest salary you could plausibly have earned during the time and deducting the lowest living expenses you would plausibly have spent. Then, on top of this, I add compensation for emotional anguish, loss of liberty, and any traumatic experiences you may have suffered while imprisoned. The total figure tends to work out to around £60,000 - £100,000 (~$100,000 - $180,000 US) per annum.
Does that sound so bad?
There's a rather large difference between "expecting people to pay board after wrongful conviction" and "deducting reasonable saved living expenses from expected income as a step in calculating compensation to pay out after wrongful conviction".
Further, in the UK it's normal practice for costs to be awarded against the losing party in a lawsuit. That's not all positive since even if you're careful about your costs an opponent with plentiful resources may spend hundreds of thousands on legal costs and if you lose (and you can never be sure in a lawsuit) you can end up liable. So this also acts as a deterrent to "the small guy", but perhaps less so than in the US?
Actually, the costs are generally limited by the civil procedures. E.g., in a claim for up to £10,000 (which is the category I believe the case discussed here would fall under) the maximum award of costs on the "fast-track" claim track would be £500 trial costs, plus £110 commencement costs. Hardly an offputting possibility, yet there are many lawyers who are perfectly willing to represent people on the basis that they will get this money if they succeed. I don't really see much downside for this practice.
Plus the UK legal system can turn quite nasty if they think you're playing games with them like the RIAA do in America.
That's true. Apart from awarding anything to the defendant that they feel are "in the interests of justice", a judge can order that you be entered into the register of vexatious litigants, after which you are required to seek permission before bringing further claims. I suspect the BPI would seriously consider the possibility of this happening before embarcing on claims like the one discussed in this brief.
In England they bill people falsely imprisoned for their room and board
Really? In cases I've heard about it's always the other way around, for instance this case where a woman was falsely imprisoned for a month and was paid £5,000 compensation.
When I saw the list of patches my machine had downloaded the other day, I thought "this one's going to be trouble. Maybe we'll see a blaster-style worm based on this one."
However, the vulnerability I was looking at was MS06-041 (remote buffer overflow in DNS client), not MS06-040 (remote buffer overflow in server) which I figured most people would have firewalled/disabled anyway.
I mean, DNS client? The best the "mitigation" section of the advisory can say is that an attacker would have to make your machine issue a DNS request to a domain they controlled in order to exploit it. Which wouldn't exactly be hard, would it?
When the iMac was first introduced, people went gaga over the fact that the monitor, computer, and speakers were all in one enclosure, thus eliminating the need for two bulky pieces of hardware and multiple cables
Maybe the submitter did. I looked at it and said "What a ridiculous design. If I decide to upgrade to a large monitor later, I have to replace the entire computer."
Also note that that's 56Mb/s half-duplex, compared to 1Gb/s full-duplex (at least as long as you're using either a direct machine-machine connection or a switch).
Not to mention the fact that one of the reasons CDs/DVDs are the size they are (12cm) because it's the widest that can fit in a standard 5 1/4" drive bay (about 14.5cm) with enough space left at the sides for a tray open/close mechanism. These new disks are the same size as a 5 1/4" disk (13cm), which leaves just enough space at the side for guide mechanisms. So we're going to have to push these disks in like floppies. Hope they're not susceptible to scratching.
Sure, because the left hates human rights and privacy, and it wants nothing more than to spy on ordinary Americans who haven't committed a crime. Oh, wait. :)