Unfortunately MPlayer requires a bundle of win32 dll's to support certain win32 A/V encodings. For instance, try playing a few wmv's without the/usr/lib/win32 directory in place (or your site config's location).
Yes, it would be extremely sexy to have open source codecs compatible with these, but alas - not today. Volunteer if you're willing.
Uh... you could have them call you in Pleasant Hill? Of course even _you_ don't make your music easy to find.
I don't have the bandwidth to put my stuff up in mp3 on any of my servers, that's one reason why P2P sharing is cool, the more people listen to it, the more people offer it up for download.
As far as calling me goes, how likely is it that anyone would accept a claim of ownership over the telephone? (Bravo for the whois usage, by the way, some folks don't even realize that it's there.)
The "We want to trade unknown bands' music!" argument is hooey.
I'm sorry, but I disagree with this. I exclusively listen to music that I doubt I would have heard of before P2P networks spread like wildfire.
Before the massive networked P2P systems, I learned of new music through occasional trial and error (it gets pricey if you do it more than occasionally), and old-fashioned peer-to-peer networking: borrowing music from friends and letting them borrow mine. Of course, the Internet hasn't usurped this, it's only made it so that my group of friends have tons of music they can sift through to find really unique stuff to recommend, and I to them.
I don't want free music if it's music I like, I'm a grateful guy and I enjoy compensating folks who make me happy.
I suspect it's going to be a bit of a pain in the ass to convince Audiogalaxy to allow me to share my band's music over their service. How can I satisfy them that I'm truly the copyright holder? If it's easy enough to make it painless, what's to keep others from attempting to get their favourite artist's music unprotected using the same technique?
For all practical purposes, it is like if you die (and disappear) each time you go to sleep, and your complete copy gets reconstructed at the instant you wake up.
Strangely enough, I never seem to wake up as you. Where am I when I sleep?
You'll get branded a troublemaker and not given as much credibility for being so uncivil - it's terrible for PR, and this is a situation where the public is your only friend. Just head down and demand satisfaction, if they haul you off without cause, you'll have grounds for a real court case later (they used the police to force acceptance of a contract, or something along those lines).
Just be upright, civil and don't resort to lawyers unless you have to. It would be a much more reasonable thing to discuss your plans with a lawyer in advance than to bring one along.
The simple fact is, they don't have the right to tell their customers how to use their product - so long as copyright isn't violated. If we give this up, we allow a legal precedent which will effectively give them that right. After that happens, other businesses will start suing to give themselves power over their customers.
I prefer to live in a country where I can actually own things rather than just renting them, perhaps you don't mind giving someone else a say in what you do with your property. If that's the case, it should be pretty easy for you to avoid arguing with my advice.;)
The profundity of your sentiment sends my mind reeling.
I could write a book on this, but instead I'll limit my response to a few lines. The issue was not "black and white", because people are more complex than simple binary. The issue was made black and white because there was little free communication between the US and the USSR, so the citizenry were ignorant of the complex variables which were affecting the situation. The Internet has potential to provide free (as in speech) communication to everyone, allowing people to communicate the complexities which could help lead to compromise rather than war in situations where it would previously been virtually inavoidable.
I personally am a big fan of Lisp, especially Franz's Allegro Common Lisp. The Lisp kernel automatically does handy things like protect against buffer overflows, and allows for debugging and modifying a running program - all of which is optional if you want to get sheer speed out of it.
Pretty handy, shame that so many people think Lisp is too old, ACL is quite modern and highly optimized - Lisp has undergone a lot of maturation over the last 50 years. Take a look at the list of links in my journal and see some of the things people are using Lisp for nowadays (AMD, Sony, Nasa, even Microsoft).
I encourage you to perform this experiment yourself.
No offense, but wasn't the point of the MD5 sum in the post a few levels up to be able to download from a non-secure server (such as gnutella) and relieve some of the load on the official sites?;)
Then let me download it ONCE. I can then FTP or copy it on my LAN, or even burn it to CD and use SneakerNet to get it to other machines.
The net-installer has an option, which it clearly presents to the user (which I suspect you missed because you complained before checking), that allows you to save the downloaded installation files to any location you'd like on your PC.
You can then do all of the things you mentioned above with those files. You'll have to download them once in either case, so the only handicap is the extra ~200K for the stub - which should take less than 2 min. on a 56k.
Well, maybe that's a bit imprecise. What I'm attempting to get at is this: the author has to have an extremely good idea what's going on to be able to joke about the process without drawing a bad analogy and lowering the quality of the manual by confusing the reader. In addition to that understanding, the author also has to be funny - not Chris Rock funny, but at least have a grasp of irony to work with.
The point is, most of the technical folks who have a sense of humor and write documentation already find a way to weasel this into their work, by making this common practice, we'll end-up with a lot of formulaic Marketoid humor injected into references unnecessarily.
instead of contemplating the relevance of your remarks, you claim that you are now due credit for revealing 'ugly information'
I didn't argue the relevance of comments, that's something I will allow moderators to do. I also have not claimed any right to credit for something I give freely, information is not a scarce resource.
I say what I wish when I wish it, if anyone derives some benefit from my having dones so, good - if not, so what? My words aren't damaging, nobody is forced to read them.
Just as a matter of interest, did you honestly believe that this comment had some relevance to the substance of the story?
Appears to have more to do with it than yours. Mine talks about IBM and Germany's history together, not everyone in the whole wide world knows about this controversial tidbit - and I'm not in the business of concealing ugly information.
You might have noticed that I observed that one should not believe everything one reads, implying that a little research is in order.
...to improve your sociability in international forums.
What was unsociable about my comment? Are you discounting the validity of the information I presented? Perhaps the sheer fact that I pointed-out information which is considered "impolite" to folks who can't get over the fact that their country's history contains a black mark (as if any avoid that! Remind me about the US and slavery)?
I pointed to information that I find interesting, and I suspect others would too. It should be obvious to a pre-adolescent that I wasn't comparing the current German government to that of historic notoriety. Times change, but history does not - and should not. It's not my job to - nor my desire to - tone-down my discussion of history for the sake of politics, I'm merely discussing facts.
I'm sorry if this has offended you, or any other easily-upset readers out there. If you would like to point out any flaws in my judgement which, when corrected, may avoid such casual harm in the future, feel free - even email me if you wish.
These so called "hackers" can be so brilliant in technical areas yet naivé to the point of branding themselves with the label of "hacker" in a public contest...
I'm only 21 and I can recall the days when "Hacker" didn't connote malicious intent, or for that matter, trespassing.
Please continue supporting derogatory stereotyping, I know plenty of rednecks, hicks, etc. who appreciate having more slurs to shoot at the folks they don't understand.
Because the virus could do things from the Linux environment that WOULD have been detected by the anti-virus software if it tried it from the Windows environment during the initial infection.
Since its publication in February, Edwin Black's book "IBM and the Holocaust: The Strategic Alliance Between Nazi Germany and America's Most Powerful Corporation" has stirred unprecedented controversy among students of the Holocaust, American enterprise and information technology.
Of course, an informed person might not believe every little thing they read.;)
While running Windows you get the initial infection. The virus modifies files in the (wide open) linux partition. Windows virus-detection software (that has not been primed for this virus) is not alerted.
Then you say this in your conclusion:
Windows virus checking is running and a unix root program can do anything. So now it's the Windows partition's turn to be wide open.
If Windows' virus scanner didn't catch the virus on the initial infection (when it infected the Linux partition), why would it be useful to infect the computer via Linux as a means of avoiding the Windows virus scanning software?
Code running as root/administrator can already do anything it wants to the system, if the virus scanner doesn't halt it. I'm afraid I still fail to see any point to this.
only that most people have their fat partition mounted on boot.
I don't see how this relates to my comment. I have my vfat partition(s) mount on boot, but they are mounted in such a way as to only allow root to edit them - and only members of a certain group can read them.
plus the virus could easily infect linux binaries (while windows is running) that get executed as root during linux boot - you don't have to go to extremes and infect init to do this. not logging in as root won't protect you then.
This is a good point, in fact - it's the same point which I said was a good point in my previous post. Essentially it boils-down to the fact that code running on your hardware without the limitations applied to it by a good security model and reliable programming can basically accomplish whatever it wants.
Such code could infect your linux partitions binaries, yes, but it could just as easily blank-out your linux partitions. Why go to the extreme of infecting Linux from another dual-booted OS? Bragging rights, no doubt, but not to prove that it's possible - that part's obvious.
If you want a secure system, don't run insecure code on that system. Running Windows without properly securing access to your storage devices is one way to tremendously weaken system security.
While running in windows, the virus would have unlimited access to the linux- partition, enabling it to infect linux binaries it otherwise would only have been able to touch when run as root.
This is a good point, perhaps an argument can be made that Windows is being used to circumvent technological protections which Linux puts in place for your copyrighted data.;)
And while running in linux, it could infect binaries on a FAT partition without having to worry about the virus-checker getting in the way. In fact, it could easily infect or replace the virus-checker itself.
Now this one would be a bit more tricky. I only allow raw device access to root, and all writing to my mounted windows partition(s) is restricted to root: It would be tough for a virus to come pre-loaded with local root exploits for a wide variety of systems without it weighing-in around a couple of megs.
Just my two cents, you've raised interesting points.
Contrary to your opinion, you have not doubled the likelihood of system vulnerability by using two seperate browsers. Most all (if not all) browser security issues occur by visiting a site with offending code. MSHTML is not rendering the site when you are running Netscape.
I don't believe this invalidates my statement. If you are using an email client which sends calls to MS HTML rendering dll's, you will be exposed to additional threat than if, say, Gecko was used for both browsing and other html rendering (were you to choose mozilla as your primary browser) - or exclusively IE, for that matter.
Simply put, I don't believe it's ever a good idea to use two different subsystems at the same time, to accomplish the same task, in a networked non-development environment. It's true for the same reason that bank vaults only have one door - fewer points of entry.
Slashdot Mirror
Unfortunately MPlayer requires a bundle of win32 dll's to support certain win32 A/V encodings. For instance, try playing a few wmv's without the /usr/lib/win32 directory in place (or your site config's location).
Yes, it would be extremely sexy to have open source codecs compatible with these, but alas - not today. Volunteer if you're willing.
Imagine how much they'll charge for it if they provide a video feed, too!
This is going to give good old-fashioned Internet porn a run for its money. ;)
Uh... you could have them call you in Pleasant Hill? Of course even _you_ don't make your music easy to find.
I don't have the bandwidth to put my stuff up in mp3 on any of my servers, that's one reason why P2P sharing is cool, the more people listen to it, the more people offer it up for download.
As far as calling me goes, how likely is it that anyone would accept a claim of ownership over the telephone? (Bravo for the whois usage, by the way, some folks don't even realize that it's there.)
The "We want to trade unknown bands' music!" argument is hooey.
I'm sorry, but I disagree with this. I exclusively listen to music that I doubt I would have heard of before P2P networks spread like wildfire.
Before the massive networked P2P systems, I learned of new music through occasional trial and error (it gets pricey if you do it more than occasionally), and old-fashioned peer-to-peer networking: borrowing music from friends and letting them borrow mine. Of course, the Internet hasn't usurped this, it's only made it so that my group of friends have tons of music they can sift through to find really unique stuff to recommend, and I to them.
I don't want free music if it's music I like, I'm a grateful guy and I enjoy compensating folks who make me happy.
What about the MP3's I'm sharing of my music?
I suspect it's going to be a bit of a pain in the ass to convince Audiogalaxy to allow me to share my band's music over their service. How can I satisfy them that I'm truly the copyright holder? If it's easy enough to make it painless, what's to keep others from attempting to get their favourite artist's music unprotected using the same technique?
For all practical purposes, it is like if you die (and disappear) each time you go to sleep, and your complete copy gets reconstructed at the instant you wake up.
Strangely enough, I never seem to wake up as you. Where am I when I sleep?
(Consider that to be plural)
If only I could literally know what you're thinking, I would have no way to argue with that perspective.
fly right over your head
The poster's name was "cloudmaster" after all.
...too much humor in the world, if you know where to find it.
Seriously!
Try some Coil, Converter, Synapscape, Winterkalte, Needle Sharing, etc.. and that's just modern stuff!
(I'm a big experimental fan, if you couldn't tell)
Better have a lawyer to protect your rights
You'll get branded a troublemaker and not given as much credibility for being so uncivil - it's terrible for PR, and this is a situation where the public is your only friend. Just head down and demand satisfaction, if they haul you off without cause, you'll have grounds for a real court case later (they used the police to force acceptance of a contract, or something along those lines).
Just be upright, civil and don't resort to lawyers unless you have to. It would be a much more reasonable thing to discuss your plans with a lawyer in advance than to bring one along.
No offense buddy, but you sound like Alex Chiu arguing for "Government Rights" over individual rights.
The simple fact is, they don't have the right to tell their customers how to use their product - so long as copyright isn't violated. If we give this up, we allow a legal precedent which will effectively give them that right. After that happens, other businesses will start suing to give themselves power over their customers.
I prefer to live in a country where I can actually own things rather than just renting them, perhaps you don't mind giving someone else a say in what you do with your property. If that's the case, it should be pretty easy for you to avoid arguing with my advice. ;)
The profundity of your sentiment sends my mind reeling.
I could write a book on this, but instead I'll limit my response to a few lines. The issue was not "black and white", because people are more complex than simple binary. The issue was made black and white because there was little free communication between the US and the USSR, so the citizenry were ignorant of the complex variables which were affecting the situation. The Internet has potential to provide free (as in speech) communication to everyone, allowing people to communicate the complexities which could help lead to compromise rather than war in situations where it would previously been virtually inavoidable.
I personally am a big fan of Lisp, especially Franz's Allegro Common Lisp. The Lisp kernel automatically does handy things like protect against buffer overflows, and allows for debugging and modifying a running program - all of which is optional if you want to get sheer speed out of it.
Pretty handy, shame that so many people think Lisp is too old, ACL is quite modern and highly optimized - Lisp has undergone a lot of maturation over the last 50 years. Take a look at the list of links in my journal and see some of the things people are using Lisp for nowadays (AMD, Sony, Nasa, even Microsoft).
I encourage you to perform this experiment yourself.
No offense, but wasn't the point of the MD5 sum in the post a few levels up to be able to download from a non-secure server (such as gnutella) and relieve some of the load on the official sites? ;)
Then let me download it ONCE. I can then FTP or copy it on my LAN, or even burn it to CD and use SneakerNet to get it to other machines.
The net-installer has an option, which it clearly presents to the user (which I suspect you missed because you complained before checking), that allows you to save the downloaded installation files to any location you'd like on your PC.
You can then do all of the things you mentioned above with those files. You'll have to download them once in either case, so the only handicap is the extra ~200K for the stub - which should take less than 2 min. on a 56k.
...to pull this off.
Well, maybe that's a bit imprecise. What I'm attempting to get at is this: the author has to have an extremely good idea what's going on to be able to joke about the process without drawing a bad analogy and lowering the quality of the manual by confusing the reader. In addition to that understanding, the author also has to be funny - not Chris Rock funny, but at least have a grasp of irony to work with.
The point is, most of the technical folks who have a sense of humor and write documentation already find a way to weasel this into their work, by making this common practice, we'll end-up with a lot of formulaic Marketoid humor injected into references unnecessarily.
Just my two cents.
instead of contemplating the relevance of your remarks, you claim that you are now due credit for revealing 'ugly information'
I didn't argue the relevance of comments, that's something I will allow moderators to do. I also have not claimed any right to credit for something I give freely, information is not a scarce resource.
I say what I wish when I wish it, if anyone derives some benefit from my having dones so, good - if not, so what? My words aren't damaging, nobody is forced to read them.
Just as a matter of interest, did you honestly believe that this comment had some relevance to the substance of the story?
Appears to have more to do with it than yours. Mine talks about IBM and Germany's history together, not everyone in the whole wide world knows about this controversial tidbit - and I'm not in the business of concealing ugly information.
You might have noticed that I observed that one should not believe everything one reads, implying that a little research is in order.
What was unsociable about my comment? Are you discounting the validity of the information I presented? Perhaps the sheer fact that I pointed-out information which is considered "impolite" to folks who can't get over the fact that their country's history contains a black mark (as if any avoid that! Remind me about the US and slavery)?
I pointed to information that I find interesting, and I suspect others would too. It should be obvious to a pre-adolescent that I wasn't comparing the current German government to that of historic notoriety. Times change, but history does not - and should not. It's not my job to - nor my desire to - tone-down my discussion of history for the sake of politics, I'm merely discussing facts.
I'm sorry if this has offended you, or any other easily-upset readers out there. If you would like to point out any flaws in my judgement which, when corrected, may avoid such casual harm in the future, feel free - even email me if you wish.
These so called "hackers" can be so brilliant in technical areas yet naivé to the point of branding themselves with the label of "hacker" in a public contest...
I'm only 21 and I can recall the days when "Hacker" didn't connote malicious intent, or for that matter, trespassing.
Please continue supporting derogatory stereotyping, I know plenty of rednecks, hicks, etc. who appreciate having more slurs to shoot at the folks they don't understand.
(Irony? Think about it.)
Because the virus could do things from the Linux environment that WOULD have been detected by the anti-virus software if it tried it from the Windows environment during the initial infection.
Such as?
A lot of folks believe IBM provided Nazi Germany with electronic cataloging support which allowed for the Unpopular to be shipped-off to death camps:
Since its publication in February, Edwin Black's book "IBM and the Holocaust: The Strategic Alliance Between Nazi Germany and America's Most Powerful Corporation" has stirred unprecedented controversy among students of the Holocaust, American enterprise and information technology.
Of course, an informed person might not believe every little thing they read. ;)
First you say this in your premise:
While running Windows you get the initial infection. The virus modifies files in the (wide open) linux partition. Windows virus-detection software (that has not been primed for this virus) is not alerted.
Then you say this in your conclusion:
Windows virus checking is running and a unix root program can do anything. So now it's the Windows partition's turn to be wide open.
If Windows' virus scanner didn't catch the virus on the initial infection (when it infected the Linux partition), why would it be useful to infect the computer via Linux as a means of avoiding the Windows virus scanning software?
Code running as root/administrator can already do anything it wants to the system, if the virus scanner doesn't halt it. I'm afraid I still fail to see any point to this.
only that most people have their fat partition mounted on boot.
I don't see how this relates to my comment. I have my vfat partition(s) mount on boot, but they are mounted in such a way as to only allow root to edit them - and only members of a certain group can read them.
plus the virus could easily infect linux binaries (while windows is running) that get executed as root during linux boot - you don't have to go to extremes and infect init to do this. not logging in as root won't protect you then.
This is a good point, in fact - it's the same point which I said was a good point in my previous post. Essentially it boils-down to the fact that code running on your hardware without the limitations applied to it by a good security model and reliable programming can basically accomplish whatever it wants.
Such code could infect your linux partitions binaries, yes, but it could just as easily blank-out your linux partitions. Why go to the extreme of infecting Linux from another dual-booted OS? Bragging rights, no doubt, but not to prove that it's possible - that part's obvious.
If you want a secure system, don't run insecure code on that system. Running Windows without properly securing access to your storage devices is one way to tremendously weaken system security.
While running in windows, the virus would have unlimited access to the linux- partition, enabling it to infect linux binaries it otherwise would only have been able to touch when run as root.
This is a good point, perhaps an argument can be made that Windows is being used to circumvent technological protections which Linux puts in place for your copyrighted data. ;)
And while running in linux, it could infect binaries on a FAT partition without having to worry about the virus-checker getting in the way. In fact, it could easily infect or replace the virus-checker itself.
Now this one would be a bit more tricky. I only allow raw device access to root, and all writing to my mounted windows partition(s) is restricted to root: It would be tough for a virus to come pre-loaded with local root exploits for a wide variety of systems without it weighing-in around a couple of megs.
Just my two cents, you've raised interesting points.
Well, yes - and CPU time is a resource.
Contrary to your opinion, you have not doubled the likelihood of system vulnerability by using two seperate browsers. Most all (if not all) browser security issues occur by visiting a site with offending code. MSHTML is not rendering the site when you are running Netscape.
I don't believe this invalidates my statement. If you are using an email client which sends calls to MS HTML rendering dll's, you will be exposed to additional threat than if, say, Gecko was used for both browsing and other html rendering (were you to choose mozilla as your primary browser) - or exclusively IE, for that matter.
Simply put, I don't believe it's ever a good idea to use two different subsystems at the same time, to accomplish the same task, in a networked non-development environment. It's true for the same reason that bank vaults only have one door - fewer points of entry.