Windows Media Encoder can encode from a TV tuner, and a little script can change the channel over the web. I've done this to watch TV from work, and you can encode in ISO-MPEG4.
Yet, a context-sensitive text ad, just like those in Gmail, might prove to be both more valuable to advertisers and less obnoxious to users.
If people were freaking out about context-sensitive text ads in their email, just imagine the reaction to the plan to "scan" IM messages for advertising.
1) Has the same MD5 hash - difficult, yes, even with this, still very. But not impossible, as this proves.
2) Having the same byte count - trivial. the cost of calculating a plaintext with the same hash as another plaintext is actually less if they *are* the same byte count, due to the way it seems some of these algorithms work. The two plaintext byte sets that collide are the same byte count in the collision announced today.
3) Still does something an attacker would want it to do (like execute on the target's computer) - trivial. If you look at what can be done in just a few dozen bytes of shell code, you'll see examples of attackers working with just a little control over just a few bytes.
I won't lose sleep either. In fact, I'll feel more secure knowing that the vulnerabilities in the algorithm are known publicly instead of privately by a government organization, or some organized criminal organization.
Even if this comes from Microsoft, this is pretty amazing stuff. The OS-level ability to use the 3D acceleration features of the card by more than one application at a time may prove to be as important to future computing as the ability to create 2D windows at the OS level.
What *should* be more amazing is the response of the open-source community. I think we should all unite in an effort toward a new advanced graphics architecture. Maybe this is something IBM or SGI could reasonably invest in.
Mod Parent Down:
His post is a near-exact duplicate of this post from an hour earlier:
http://ask.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=115804&cid =9804250
And his ripoff post is modded higher than the original one that he ripped off!
I have gotta say that I agree with this guy on every point. I'm a linux and open-source enthusiast. I am using SuSE 9.1 Pro right now, and I love it. But, as this guy points out, there are problems.
1. "If you're not willing to help fix it then you shouldn't complain about it" -- I think this idea is promoted most by overwhelmed FOSS developers. And, on the surface, it sounds like it makes sense, but, really, it doesn't. Most often it's not realistic for users to fix stuff that's broken.
2. "Open Source software allows you to get under the hood and fix problems." -- I'm a moderately-skilled programmer, and I can understand most kind of source code when looking at it, and even hack on it. But getting under the hood and fixing problems with open source software is something I've tried to do more than once. Invariably, the procedure of setting up a proper build environment is long, drawn-out, poorly-documented, and riddled with problems. Which library is being used? GTK+ or Qt? Which multimedia libraries are being used? Gstreamer or aRts? This feeds into the "choice is not always good" thing, see below. Assuming the build environment is properly duplicated, including all development libraries, development toolchain, shell, version of Python used to generate the Makefile, or whatever else, there are other hurdles. What format of patches does the developer want? What's the ONLY CODING STYLE in which the developer will even accept patches? Are we using CVS, SubVersion, RCS, or just whatever mess happens to unfold in a subdirectory of the developer's home directory?
3. "All softwarew should be free" -- Well, I don't have much commentary here, the article pretty much has it covered. You get what you pay for, and if you really think ALL software MUST be free (RMS, as mentioned in the article), then you're a silly communist.
6. "More choice is always better" -- No, not always. My choice of Mozilla over Konqueror isn't better because Mozilla doesn't integrate with the desktop environment at all. My choice of Konqueror over Mozilla isn't better because Gmail doesn't work with Konqueror. My choice of Gaim over Kopete isn't better because for some reason Gaim on my system doesn't detect my idle time. My choice of Kopete over Gaim isn't better because then I can't use my favorite plugins.
Most of the time, users of Linux distributions must choose multiple tools for the same job. I'll use the OpenOffice.org Writer sometimes because it has better interoperability with MSOFFICE files, and I'll use KWord sometimes because I like its frame layout thingie better. mono or pnet, bash or csh, Evolution or Kmail... they're both GOOD, but in some ways, each option is better than the alternative. And personally, I don't like using two web browsers throughout the day, two IM clients, two office suites, two (or three) shells. If possible, I would rather have one tool that has all the best capabilities of each choice.
I have gotta say that I agree with this guy on every point. I'm a linux and open-source enthusiast. I am using SuSE 9.1 Pro right now, and I love it. But, as this guy points out, there are problems.
1. "If you're not willing to help fix it then you shouldn't complain about it" -- I think this idea is promoted most by overwhelmed FOSS developers. And, on the surface, it sounds like it makes sense, but, really, it doesn't. Most often it's not realistic for users to fix stuff that's broken.
2. "Open Source software allows you to get under the hood and fix problems." -- I'm a moderately-skilled programmer, and I can understand most kind of source code when looking at it, and even hack on it. But getting under the hood and fixing problems with open source software is something I've tried to do more than once. Invariably, the procedure of setting up a proper build environment is long, drawn-out, poorly-documented, and riddled with problems. Which library is being used? GTK+ or Qt? Which multimedia libraries are being used? Gstreamer or aRts? This feeds into the "choice is not alw
"apps that run on X-Windows" (sic) aren't OS X apps. They actually use the BSD subsystem and API on OS X instead of Cocoa. This is Mac OS X's ability to run unix-based software.
I always thought that the radial design of the 1G and 2G iPods was superior to the "row of buttons" of the 3G iPod. I thought that the iPod mini was even better with the combining of the wheel and the buttons.
Another notable difference here is the darker buttons. I've yet to decide if that's a good or bad thing, as far as design goes. What do you people think?
Celestia rocks. It's a free (GPL program/public domain data) program where you fly arond space and see stars and planets and stuff. Educational, fun, and free!
TaskBar Grouping and Auto-Hide are the first to go, when working on someone's laptop. They are useless, and not terribly important.
Well, laptop computer repairman, I am sure your customers enjoy you messing with their settings, and making decisions as to what's important or useful for them.
Idiot.
We all know that you can download videos off the Internet at about 700MB apiece. But thanks for letting us know about that.
OH WOW! xvid makes this possible! WTF ever. xvid is not necessarily better than any of its fellow MPEG-4-derived codecs, like divx, or WMV9.
The point made by the person you replied to is that HD movies would be bigger. So they'd be harder to download.
Encrypting a video stream? Encrypting media content? What are you talking about, some kind of DRM system? On Slashdot?
Seriously though, Windows Media supports ISO MPEG4 and some good DRM.... I mean... encryption.
--
Sam Kennedy
The Cygwin/X project recently switched from the XFree86 branch to the X.org branch in their implementation of an X server for Win32. It works great, and even has new features, like OpenGL support, and rootless windows (ie, your local or remote X windows are seemlessly mixed with your Windows app windows).
I've got a Blog on Blogger, but apparently I wasn't considered "active" enough to be invited to participate. Anyone want to somehow give their gmail invitation to me?
I may even be willing to trade some old hardware I have for it.
My point is that if Debian uses X.Org's X11, then they won't have to fall back to your doomsday scenario of all X-based applications going into contrib wouldn't happen.
Putting XFree86 in non free would mean that all software which depends on X would have to move to contrib.
Oh, that would be horrible. Someone should make a Free fork of XFree86 so that doesn't have to happen. Like, maybe some kind of "Foundation", maybe called X.Org. And they should release software.
The wiki style of doing things is beneficial even if you're the only one editing it. You can maintain links, and work ahead, then go back and fix something later.
And, as an extra bonus, in case you never finish it, unfinished things look right at home in a wiki!
Slashdot Mirror
Windows Media Encoder can encode from a TV tuner, and a little script can change the channel over the web. I've done this to watch TV from work, and you can encode in ISO-MPEG4.
Unlikely. http://www.google.com/corporate/software_principle s.html
And then they begin an invasion of Iraq?
Yet, a context-sensitive text ad, just like those in Gmail, might prove to be both more valuable to advertisers and less obnoxious to users.
If people were freaking out about context-sensitive text ads in their email, just imagine the reaction to the plan to "scan" IM messages for advertising.
Yes, but if you have someone's MSN handle, then you have their email address. :-P
1) Has the same MD5 hash - difficult, yes, even with this, still very. But not impossible, as this proves. 2) Having the same byte count - trivial. the cost of calculating a plaintext with the same hash as another plaintext is actually less if they *are* the same byte count, due to the way it seems some of these algorithms work. The two plaintext byte sets that collide are the same byte count in the collision announced today. 3) Still does something an attacker would want it to do (like execute on the target's computer) - trivial. If you look at what can be done in just a few dozen bytes of shell code, you'll see examples of attackers working with just a little control over just a few bytes. I won't lose sleep either. In fact, I'll feel more secure knowing that the vulnerabilities in the algorithm are known publicly instead of privately by a government organization, or some organized criminal organization.
Even if this comes from Microsoft, this is pretty amazing stuff. The OS-level ability to use the 3D acceleration features of the card by more than one application at a time may prove to be as important to future computing as the ability to create 2D windows at the OS level. What *should* be more amazing is the response of the open-source community. I think we should all unite in an effort toward a new advanced graphics architecture. Maybe this is something IBM or SGI could reasonably invest in.
Mod Parent Down: His post is a near-exact duplicate of this post from an hour earlier: http://ask.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=115804&cid =9804250
And his ripoff post is modded higher than the original one that he ripped off!
I have gotta say that I agree with this guy on every point. I'm a linux and open-source enthusiast. I am using SuSE 9.1 Pro right now, and I love it. But, as this guy points out, there are problems.
1. "If you're not willing to help fix it then you shouldn't complain about it" -- I think this idea is promoted most by overwhelmed FOSS developers. And, on the surface, it sounds like it makes sense, but, really, it doesn't. Most often it's not realistic for users to fix stuff that's broken.
2. "Open Source software allows you to get under the hood and fix problems." -- I'm a moderately-skilled programmer, and I can understand most kind of source code when looking at it, and even hack on it. But getting under the hood and fixing problems with open source software is something I've tried to do more than once. Invariably, the procedure of setting up a proper build environment is long, drawn-out, poorly-documented, and riddled with problems. Which library is being used? GTK+ or Qt? Which multimedia libraries are being used? Gstreamer or aRts? This feeds into the "choice is not always good" thing, see below. Assuming the build environment is properly duplicated, including all development libraries, development toolchain, shell, version of Python used to generate the Makefile, or whatever else, there are other hurdles. What format of patches does the developer want? What's the ONLY CODING STYLE in which the developer will even accept patches? Are we using CVS, SubVersion, RCS, or just whatever mess happens to unfold in a subdirectory of the developer's home directory?
3. "All softwarew should be free" -- Well, I don't have much commentary here, the article pretty much has it covered. You get what you pay for, and if you really think ALL software MUST be free (RMS, as mentioned in the article), then you're a silly communist.
6. "More choice is always better" -- No, not always. My choice of Mozilla over Konqueror isn't better because Mozilla doesn't integrate with the desktop environment at all. My choice of Konqueror over Mozilla isn't better because Gmail doesn't work with Konqueror. My choice of Gaim over Kopete isn't better because for some reason Gaim on my system doesn't detect my idle time. My choice of Kopete over Gaim isn't better because then I can't use my favorite plugins.
Most of the time, users of Linux distributions must choose multiple tools for the same job. I'll use the OpenOffice.org Writer sometimes because it has better interoperability with MSOFFICE files, and I'll use KWord sometimes because I like its frame layout thingie better. mono or pnet, bash or csh, Evolution or Kmail... they're both GOOD, but in some ways, each option is better than the alternative. And personally, I don't like using two web browsers throughout the day, two IM clients, two office suites, two (or three) shells. If possible, I would rather have one tool that has all the best capabilities of each choice.
I have gotta say that I agree with this guy on every point. I'm a linux and open-source enthusiast. I am using SuSE 9.1 Pro right now, and I love it. But, as this guy points out, there are problems.
1. "If you're not willing to help fix it then you shouldn't complain about it" -- I think this idea is promoted most by overwhelmed FOSS developers. And, on the surface, it sounds like it makes sense, but, really, it doesn't. Most often it's not realistic for users to fix stuff that's broken.
2. "Open Source software allows you to get under the hood and fix problems." -- I'm a moderately-skilled programmer, and I can understand most kind of source code when looking at it, and even hack on it. But getting under the hood and fixing problems with open source software is something I've tried to do more than once. Invariably, the procedure of setting up a proper build environment is long, drawn-out, poorly-documented, and riddled with problems. Which library is being used? GTK+ or Qt? Which multimedia libraries are being used? Gstreamer or aRts? This feeds into the "choice is not alw
"apps that run on X-Windows" (sic) aren't OS X apps. They actually use the BSD subsystem and API on OS X instead of Cocoa. This is Mac OS X's ability to run unix-based software.
Wrong.
Read up. WinFS will very much be a part of Longhorn.
I always thought that the radial design of the 1G and 2G iPods was superior to the "row of buttons" of the 3G iPod. I thought that the iPod mini was even better with the combining of the wheel and the buttons.
Another notable difference here is the darker buttons. I've yet to decide if that's a good or bad thing, as far as design goes. What do you people think?
They're saying they're making IE more secure by asking website authors not to exploit it?!?!?!?
No. They're suggesting that people not do these things because they will be blocked in IE6 SV1.
It would seem relatively easy (USB sound devices, or cheap PCI sound cards) to add sound to each workstation.
22fps on a 4MB Virge card on Windows 98?
Celestia rocks. It's a free (GPL program/public domain data) program where you fly arond space and see stars and planets and stuff. Educational, fun, and free!
TaskBar Grouping and Auto-Hide are the first to go, when working on someone's laptop. They are useless, and not terribly important.
Well, laptop computer repairman, I am sure your customers enjoy you messing with their settings, and making decisions as to what's important or useful for them.
Idiot. We all know that you can download videos off the Internet at about 700MB apiece. But thanks for letting us know about that. OH WOW! xvid makes this possible! WTF ever. xvid is not necessarily better than any of its fellow MPEG-4-derived codecs, like divx, or WMV9. The point made by the person you replied to is that HD movies would be bigger. So they'd be harder to download.
Encrypting a video stream? Encrypting media content? What are you talking about, some kind of DRM system? On Slashdot? Seriously though, Windows Media supports ISO MPEG4 and some good DRM.... I mean... encryption. -- Sam Kennedy
The Cygwin/X project recently switched from the XFree86 branch to the X.org branch in their implementation of an X server for Win32. It works great, and even has new features, like OpenGL support, and rootless windows (ie, your local or remote X windows are seemlessly mixed with your Windows app windows).
I've got a Blog on Blogger, but apparently I wasn't considered "active" enough to be invited to participate. Anyone want to somehow give their gmail invitation to me? I may even be willing to trade some old hardware I have for it.
My point is that if Debian uses X.Org's X11, then they won't have to fall back to your doomsday scenario of all X-based applications going into contrib wouldn't happen.
Oh, and I'll use Debian, thanks.
Putting XFree86 in non free would mean that all software which depends on X would have to move to contrib.
Oh, that would be horrible. Someone should make a Free fork of XFree86 so that doesn't have to happen. Like, maybe some kind of "Foundation", maybe called X.Org. And they should release software.
The wiki style of doing things is beneficial even if you're the only one editing it. You can maintain links, and work ahead, then go back and fix something later.
And, as an extra bonus, in case you never finish it, unfinished things look right at home in a wiki!
The cygwin DLLs that it tries to load aren't the main cygwin DLLs, but rather other DLLs that have to do with tcl, zlib, and so on.