a) switched operating systems (Windows is easily the worst offender for controling what application own's what file types, and for uninstalling software due to it's underlying file extention and DLL paradigms respectively). Removing installed Applications on every other mainstream OS is easy (no 'Uninstall Wizards' required).
If your not convinced - Real Player on Mac OS, Linux and Solaris (and the various other Unixes it runs on) is a fine system citizen, as is Windows Media Player on Solaris and Mac OS and as is QuickTime on Mac OS.
or
c) Paid more attention when installing software!
BOTH Real AND QuickTime ask you which files you want them to take ownership of. They do NOT take ownership of filetypes without asking.
If you DO insist on using Microsoft Operating Systems and THEN installing inferior streaming software like Real Player (or AOL's software for that matter) you should know *exactly* what to expect.
Lastly, as for rebooting because of QuickTime:
If QuickTime crashes, it's possible it is at fault (though Apple have been making QuickTime for Windows since Windows 3.1, and it's extreamly widely used, so unlikely).
BUT
If you have to *REBOOT* then YOUR OPERATING SYSTEM IS THE PROBLEM!
Media Players, such as QuickTime do not have low level access to your hardware, they are regular Applications that for the most part simply make calls to lowerlevel API's.
Why on earth would you use an operating system that let's mere applications crash your whole computer, or force you to reboot (and is *renound* for crashing)? And *THEN* complain about it?! There are so many alternatives!
Quite frankly I'm baffled. It's a bit like someone buying a Lada with 3 wheels and then publicly complaining that it's slow, doesn't take corners very well and keeps veering to one side! Well YEAH, DUH, that's why everyone keeps slagging it off!
Your right to say there are a lot of zelots who bend the facts, I agree.
There is a book called the Sceptial Environmentalist by Bjorn Lomborg which I think you might like: http://www.easyfiction.co.uk/Bjorn-Lomborg- Sceptic al-Environmentalis-0521804477.html
It points out "exaggeration and selective quotation" that is often, though some have said the book itself is guilty of just that - YMMV.
Though personally I think it's understable, given the complete reistance of people to accept some basic facts.
I would say though that Sea Levels are NOT falling in some areas and rising in others, that is completly untrue. That would not actually be possible (unless you were talking about sea levels in inland sea's, which is attributable to rainfall alone and has nothing to do with polar ice caps).
HUNDREDS of people die in hot weather in the US each year due to heat stroke!
From http://www.stayinginshape.com/3osfcorp/libv/e09.sh tml he Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) say each year more people in the United States die from extreme heat exposure than from hurricanes, lightening, tornadoes, floods, and earthquakes combined. Over the past two decades, at least 7421 deaths that occurred in this country were attributed to excessive heat exposure. On average, approximately 300 people die each year from exposure to heat.
People used to a hundred years ago too, but we didn't have TV, and the distribution of news papers was not what is now, so no one really noticed unless it happend in there local area.
If you turned off the A/C in Florida for 12 months I'd wager that you'd get at least a few hundred extra dead wrinklies!
To address your point's specifically:
The goldminers of Western Australia didn't have AC for 15
True - but were all a bunch of convicts and nobody cared;) (HHOJ)
As for India, well it's much more lucious (as apposed to being a dustball). As for places that *are* dustballs (like parts of Africa) well you got me there.
It's possible that you just get used to the heat if you grow up in that sort of climate, or that people just die all the time and it's not reported (after all there is an extreamly high mortallity rate all over Africa).
I said the Kyoto agreement was fundementally flawed.
That's all. It's pretty clear statement.
It doesnt give credit for the amount of conservation a company does (so even it does more good than harm, you can fail to meet the requirements, and even if you harm the environment without reparing any past damage you can pass it with flying colors).
Clearly, as it stands, there is no actually incentive or credit given for being a good environmental citizen. Broadly speaking it's a good idea, but the Kyoto agreement was rotten way of doing it (and was lampooned as such by various sources, including a particularly good reponse inThe Economist).
How the fuck you infered that as 'if we followed your logic Canada does not have to concern itself with pollution?' is beyond me.
If you take a look around London, which has *many* buildings 100-200 years old, you can see the damange caused by Acid rain. There are even stuctures in London over 1500 years old (unlike in the US!).
Typical boody Americans think that anything built pre 1950's is old (I even heard one couple in New York saying "You know that church by Central Park, that building is so old, it's amazing!" and the damn thing was only 70 years old - I grew up in a *house* that was older than that!).
These buidlings have not sustained any damange in the previous hundred years, but because of environmental changes they have been erroded very badly in recent years.
This has happened across the globe in Italy, Greece and Germany. This is a direct result of the industrialisation of the last 100 years. It's a big problem and were tackling it here in Europe, by cutting down the amount of pollutants we use, forceably, in law.
Rain is more Acidic and Sea Levels are rising - these are not conjecture, but mesurable and factual. The hole in the Ozone layer is also a recent event.
So: A gap in the Ozone layer, Acid rain and sea levels rising.
The first two are, beyond all reasonable doubt (based on a weath of information avalible), caused by us, the second is still open to debate.
But what do you think the chances are they are related? The evidence is pretty compeling.
*I'm* a sceptic and YOUR irrational unwillingness to look that facts is scary.
Do you know ANYTHING about the topic at hand, or are you just a typically uninformed asshole?
MAJOR CORRECTION! The polar ice caps melting means the sea level rises and we lose land, and not gain any. That is a very big deal.
Now personally, I am a sceptical enviromentalist and it's perfectly possible this is all entirely normal behaviour for our ecosystem, but what we are doing is absolutely just making things worse.
Now I agree that AC is not a waste, it's damn hot in some places and people would die (litteraly) if it wasn't there.
Also, yes the Kyoto agreement didn't make a lot of sense in the US, because it didn't take in to account how many forests the US plants (or other forms of conservation). In this respect, the Kyoto agreement was fundementally flawed.
BUT, all that said, the US (in general) seems to have less of an 'public awareness' of this issue. And it's something that all countries need to tackle.
Even if the melting of the polar caps is entirely natrual, it's surely fair to except we are all only making things worse, and pretending that the issue doesn't exist is not going to make it go away.
(This is not aimed at the previous poster, more a general comment.)
Just like to point out that that the discs in question are NOT CD's.
They do not have the Compact Disc logo on them, or on the packaging, nor do they call themselves Compact Discs because they are not actually Compact Discs.
Phillips have forbidden them to use the term Compact Discs because the do not ahear to the format (which is quite strict - a genuine CD would of course work just fine in an iMac).
Sure they happen to work in some Compact Disc players, but they are not CD's any more than DVD's are CD's or MiniDiscs are CD's and that what's very important the public inderstand about these new discs - they are not Compact Discs, but an entirely new format (that just happens to work in some exiting CD players).
Any Compact Disc player that strictly adhears to the CD format will not play these discs.
It is notable that they do not display the CD logo (and are not permitted to by Phillips) because they do NOT follow the format of Compact Discs. In fact, in place of where the 'Compact Disc' logo normally would be is a warning informing you not to use this disk in a Personal Computer.
I agree this would be really awful of Apple if Apple did not repair them, but I expect they would (Apple customer services is excellent, if sometimes a little slow (at least IME), they will even repair stupid damage caused by the user at no charge.).
I expect that they are covering themselves in case this becomes an epedemic.
Of course it's worrying that these CD's can/apparently/ affect the firmware of an iMac (!) but this could turn out to be a blessing in disguse....used in articles aimed at the general public, it's excellent amunition in the propoganda war against copy protection.
I'm seeing a lot of very similar replies, so I guess I didn't explain it very well:-).
Re posting this as a reply to myself so that more people will see it..
Encrypting the data on the card acts as a second layer, as the data on the card is encrypted by the card (as with, say a Sky TV card), but having that data itself also be encrypted against a public key and verifed by the device reading *as well* (which would be appropriate for something like say a secure door pass networked to a central server) would be appropriately secure (though biometrics would probably be more secure, if only they were reliable [HHOS]:-).
By way of illustration:
*insert smart card in door pass* Smart card: Hi, gimme some data I can use to authenticate you. Reader: Here you are. *Smart card churns over* Smart card: Okay, here's some authentication data based on the input you gave me. Reader: Cheers, let me check that data by decrypting it against my private key. *Reader sends data to server* *Server decrypts key, compares contents (a passphrase) against a stored hash of the users passphrase say (just as an example).* Server: Yep, authenticates okay. *Door opens*
This way, even if someone reverse engineered your card and built a reader, they could not get the data out unless they were also able to decrypt your authentication.
As a stage further, you could give the card a new 'key 'based on a one time pad after authenticating them too, which would be really secure (meaing the card would have be used before it was reporting missing or compromised, as you couldn't then simply make one identicle copy and keep using it because it would of course change each time it was used).
This *could* even work in something like Sky / OnDigitial boxes because they both already have modems which could be used to authenticate the new card (monthly, or yearly when a new card was inserted) but not obviously for realtime decoding of video data.:-) Possibly just for authentication pherhaps....(though to be honest, that level of security would be be relevent in this particular instance:-)
It's not about being 'scum' it's about doing business.
Unless the client starts out clearly stating that he expects to own the source you produce you don't have to roll over and get screwed (Why should you? Software is *expensive* to develop and small companies simply can't afford to pay for the rights to have software build exlusively for them, the development of sophisticated packages costs tens of thousands.)
I'm not advocating misleading people, if they are paying you many thousands of USD or UKP then one would expect they want the source, but don't think for one minute that you won't get screwed if they can do it legally.
It's not a tea party and your clients are not always your friends and companies arn't pulling punches, it's business. MOST companies are happy to screw you when it comes to paying your fee (as most contractors can testify to).
If they have a problem, say the software doesn't do something they expect it do, but they never explicitly asked for it, they will quite happly withold part of, or your entire fee. Or sue you if they think they can (even if only to get out of paying you). They are justing being smart and doing business, it's what capitalism is about.
It's very often NOT in his best interest to pay you to develop software that he then exlusively owns. That may cost him 20,000 UKP or more, when you can do it it for about 5,000 but you retain the rights.
To hand over the rights to the source of a non trivial app when you don't have to and just because they can't afford it makes you a fool. Giving the companies full rights to your work on the cheap just because they can't afford it and you feel sorry for them is bad business and certainly harms you (as a developer) and in the long run may very well harm the company you did the work for too (as you would always have to write *everything* you do from scratch, which would take much longer for you to do and so would cost them much more).
Oh yes, agree of course, but no I am talking about smart cards (though depending on the use).
Encrypting the data on the card acts as a second layer, as the data on the card is encrypted by the card (as with, say a Sky TV card), but having that data itself also be encrypted against a public key and verifed by the device reading *as well* (which would be appropriate for something like say a secure door pass networked to a central server) would be appropriately secure (though biometrics would probably be more secure, if only they were reliable [HHOS]:-).
By way of illustration:
*insert smart card in door pass*
Smart card: Hi, gimme some data I can use to authenticate you. Reader: Here you are. *Smart card churns over* Smart card: Okay, here's some authentication data based on the input you gave me. Reader: Cheers, let me check that data by decrypting it against my private key. *Reader sends data to server* *Server decrypts key, compares contents (a passphrase) against a stored hash of the users passphrase.* Server: Yep, authenticates okay.
*Door opens*
This way, even if someone reverse engineered your card and built a reader, they could not get the data out unless they were also able to decrypt your authentication.
If the card supported writing data to, you could give it a key based on a onetime pad after authenticating them too, which would be really secure (meaing the card would have be used before it was reporting missing or compromised, as you couldn't then simply make one identicle copy and keep using it because it would of course change each time it was used).
This is a neat trick, sure but it's not a big issue.
This could ALREADY be done by anyone with a smart card reader already (which is cheaper than a camera and a microscope I might add!).
Duh!:)
Sensitive data on cards are stored encrypted using the readers public key. The data on the smartcard can be sent from the reader to a centralised location (over a network, much like the way credit cards are verified in realtime just now) and then decoded and verified by a central point (or a selction of central points for redundancy).
It's a given that the smartcard could always be read - this has been accounted for in design of secure systems that use smart cards (we'll the good ones anyway, addmittedly there are quite few which don't (there are a lot of muppets in this industry):).
If your hired to provide a solution, you own the code.
You don't even have to give, or even *show*, the client the source. It's yours.
The best way to assure this (and avoid legal action, which is unlikely to be taken by any small company at any rate, unless you are clearly ripping them off to the extent they belive they had a VERY good chance of winning) is to simply state in smal type 'all IP and origional work remains legal property of the author'.
The onus is on the client to show that he has purchased - or prove that he belived that he was purchsing the source.
No shit sherlock! An adapter? Well bugger me - I'd never have thought of that!
That would be yet another another thing I'd have to carry around.
No thanks, I'd much, much rather buy a Viao than carry around an adapter for something as trivially common as a VGA interface on such a large laptop.
Adapters are usually easy to damage, difficult to get replacements in a hurry (unless you are in a major city and near an retailer that just *happens* to have them in stock) and a hassle to carry around. THAT is why laptop manufacturers have *stopped* using adapters for things like VGA, Ethernet and Modems - people *hated* them.
AFAIC if you can afford an Apple display, you can probably afford a desktop Mac too (rendering the DVI interface on the laptop moot) as you could use the laptop in Firewire HD mode.
I can see people in weathly Mac centric environments prefering a DVI connector, but as someone who takes it to various offices with regular non Apple PC equipment I find the VGA interface more useful and was a little surpised at this.
I'm not about to upgrade my 500Mz G4 PB (I can't afford the cost, I'll be paying for this one for another year and half I reckon:-) but as a road warrioring unix/developer (rather than say, a graphic artist) this would actually slightly put me off getting one as it's very rare to find an expensive Apple LCD display going unused - very few places can afford one going spare.
Where as in contrast I can usually find at least a 17 inch CRT going unsed in a comapany (and at home:).
I say we dust off and nuke the Middle East from orbit.
It's the only way to be sure.
Re: I pity the fool who speak without thinking
on
CaptyTV for Mac
·
· Score: 1
Yes 12Mb is sufficient for video, that's 1.5 Megabytes - bear in mind there is no IP latency or TCP overhead here so it's fairly efficent. *Commercial* quality TV feeds are done using only 2 Megabytes/sec.
As for 'suck ass', well they work as advertised - they take Video in and allow you to capture it to disk, in a small portable form for just ~60 UKP. Very useful for slim line laptop users (who have no PCMCIA card slots).
The fact that you think they 'suck ass' doesn't detract from the fact that yes, it's possible and yes, such devices exist and yes, they work!
It has exactly the same storage capacity and much much less size, while costing the same (at least in Canary Wharf [Europe's Tallest Building and my local shopping center]). Also it's been avalible for much longer.
So again, the Nomad Jukebox isn't "The Best", there are far better options.
People tend to defend their purchasing decions feircly though, so it's amusing to see Nomad users stick up for their players, even against the likes of the Archos and the iPod, not a lot of Nomad users defending the Nomad against the Archos, wonder why?.
Having storage space being more important than transfer time doesn't make you a jerk. The Archos is also a great player
However I think saying that the iPod is not the right choice because "10 gigs just doesn't cut it" because you have "1500 CDS" does.
No portable player that exists does that. You'd need ~80 GB of storage. You'd need *two* slimline hard disk to get close to that much storage (even then you'd still fall short).
So onces again: "There is no way any objective person could think this unit is superior."
I realise that's inflammatory, but it's true!
Even if you discounted the iPod, the Archos is *still* about half the size of the Nomad (and so fit's in a pocket) and still has exactly the same storage capacity as the Nomad. The Nomad just isn't a great offering and never was compared to the competion.
Sure the long lasting battery life will be nice, but as I've said in other posts, I can fly ~to the other side of the globe before my iPod goes flat (and I recently did), and half way around the world that's the longest journey I'm ever likely to take! (Any longer than that and I'd be (a) in space or (b) just going the wrong way round the globe:)
Slashdot Mirror
Sounds like it's time you:
a) switched operating systems (Windows is easily the worst offender for controling what application own's what file types, and for uninstalling software due to it's underlying file extention and DLL paradigms respectively). Removing installed Applications on every other mainstream OS is easy (no 'Uninstall Wizards' required).
If your not convinced - Real Player on Mac OS, Linux and Solaris (and the various other Unixes it runs on) is a fine system citizen, as is Windows Media Player on Solaris and Mac OS and as is QuickTime on Mac OS.
or
c) Paid more attention when installing software!
BOTH Real AND QuickTime ask you which files you want them to take ownership of. They do NOT take ownership of filetypes without asking.
If you DO insist on using Microsoft Operating Systems and THEN installing inferior streaming software like Real Player (or AOL's software for that matter) you should know *exactly* what to expect.
Lastly, as for rebooting because of QuickTime:
If QuickTime crashes, it's possible it is at fault (though Apple have been making QuickTime for Windows since Windows 3.1, and it's extreamly widely used, so unlikely).
BUT
If you have to *REBOOT* then YOUR OPERATING SYSTEM IS THE PROBLEM!
Media Players, such as QuickTime do not have low level access to your hardware, they are regular Applications that for the most part simply make calls to lowerlevel API's.
Why on earth would you use an operating system that let's mere applications crash your whole computer, or force you to reboot (and is *renound* for crashing)? And *THEN* complain about it?! There are so many alternatives!
Quite frankly I'm baffled. It's a bit like someone buying a Lada with 3 wheels and then publicly complaining that it's slow, doesn't take corners very well and keeps veering to one side! Well YEAH, DUH, that's why everyone keeps slagging it off!
Notice the HHOJ (Ha Ha Only Joking) at the end ;-)
;-)
And anyway I'm a Scotsman, so what do I care if a bunch of Englishmen get farmed off to Austrialia
Seriously, I know bit about it already - didn't know about that Museum though, will definately pay it a visit next time I am in Nottingham, cheers!
PS: It's 27 hear in London, wearing shorts in the office, whoohoo!
Your right to say there are a lot of zelots who bend the facts, I agree.
- Sceptic al-Environmentalis-0521804477.html
There is a book called the Sceptial Environmentalist by Bjorn Lomborg which I think you might like:
http://www.easyfiction.co.uk/Bjorn-Lomborg
It points out "exaggeration and selective quotation" that is often, though some have said the book itself is guilty of just that - YMMV.
Though personally I think it's understable, given the complete reistance of people to accept some basic facts.
I would say though that Sea Levels are NOT falling in some areas and rising in others, that is completly untrue. That would not actually be possible (unless you were talking about sea levels in inland sea's, which is attributable to rainfall alone and has nothing to do with polar ice caps).
You say that it's not life or death, but it is!
h tml
;) (HHOJ)
HUNDREDS of people die in hot weather in the US each year due to heat stroke!
From http://www.stayinginshape.com/3osfcorp/libv/e09.s
he Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) say each year more people in the United States die from extreme heat exposure than from hurricanes, lightening, tornadoes, floods, and earthquakes combined. Over the past two decades, at least 7421 deaths that occurred in this country were attributed to excessive heat exposure. On average, approximately 300 people die each year from exposure to heat.
People used to a hundred years ago too, but we didn't have TV, and the distribution of news papers was not what is now, so no one really noticed unless it happend in there local area.
If you turned off the A/C in Florida for 12 months I'd wager that you'd get at least a few hundred extra dead wrinklies!
To address your point's specifically:
The goldminers of Western Australia didn't have AC for 15
True - but were all a bunch of convicts and nobody cared
As for India, well it's much more lucious (as apposed to being a dustball). As for places that *are* dustballs (like parts of Africa) well you got me there.
It's possible that you just get used to the heat if you grow up in that sort of climate, or that people just die all the time and it's not reported (after all there is an extreamly high mortallity rate all over Africa).
What a bizzare statement to make!
I said the Kyoto agreement was fundementally flawed.
That's all. It's pretty clear statement.
It doesnt give credit for the amount of conservation a company does (so even it does more good than harm, you can fail to meet the requirements, and even if you harm the environment without reparing any past damage you can pass it with flying colors).
Clearly, as it stands, there is no actually incentive or credit given for being a good environmental citizen. Broadly speaking it's a good idea, but the Kyoto agreement was rotten way of doing it (and was lampooned as such by various sources, including a particularly good reponse inThe Economist).
How the fuck you infered that as 'if we followed your logic Canada does not have to concern itself with pollution?' is beyond me.
"Most likely we are not having any effect at all"
.
Where the HELL did you pull that from?
You can it with the naked eye!
If you take a look around London, which has *many* buildings 100-200 years old, you can see the damange caused by Acid rain. There are even stuctures in London over 1500 years old (unlike in the US!)
Typical boody Americans think that anything built pre 1950's is old (I even heard one couple in New York saying "You know that church by Central Park, that building is so old, it's amazing!" and the damn thing was only 70 years old - I grew up in a *house* that was older than that!).
These buidlings have not sustained any damange in the previous hundred years, but because of environmental changes they have been erroded very badly in recent years.
This has happened across the globe in Italy, Greece and Germany. This is a direct result of the industrialisation of the last 100 years. It's a big problem and were tackling it here in Europe, by cutting down the amount of pollutants we use, forceably, in law.
Rain is more Acidic and Sea Levels are rising - these are not conjecture, but mesurable and factual. The hole in the Ozone layer is also a recent event.
So: A gap in the Ozone layer, Acid rain and sea levels rising.
The first two are, beyond all reasonable doubt (based on a weath of information avalible), caused by us, the second is still open to debate.
But what do you think the chances are they are related? The evidence is pretty compeling.
*I'm* a sceptic and YOUR irrational unwillingness to look that facts is scary.
Do you know ANYTHING about the topic at hand, or are you just a typically uninformed asshole?
MAJOR CORRECTION!
The polar ice caps melting means the sea level rises and we lose land, and not gain any. That is a very big deal.
Now personally, I am a sceptical enviromentalist and it's perfectly possible this is all entirely normal behaviour for our ecosystem, but what we are doing is absolutely just making things worse.
Now I agree that AC is not a waste, it's damn hot in some places and people would die (litteraly) if it wasn't there.
Also, yes the Kyoto agreement didn't make a lot of sense in the US, because it didn't take in to account how many forests the US plants (or other forms of conservation). In this respect, the Kyoto agreement was fundementally flawed.
BUT, all that said, the US (in general) seems to have less of an 'public awareness' of this issue. And it's something that all countries need to tackle.
Even if the melting of the polar caps is entirely natrual, it's surely fair to except we are all only making things worse, and pretending that the issue doesn't exist is not going to make it go away.
(This is not aimed at the previous poster, more a general comment.)
Just like to point out that that the discs in question are NOT CD's.
They do not have the Compact Disc logo on them, or on the packaging, nor do they call themselves Compact Discs because they are not actually Compact Discs.
Phillips have forbidden them to use the term Compact Discs because the do not ahear to the format (which is quite strict - a genuine CD would of course work just fine in an iMac).
Sure they happen to work in some Compact Disc players, but they are not CD's any more than DVD's are CD's or MiniDiscs are CD's and that what's very important the public inderstand about these new discs - they are not Compact Discs, but an entirely new format (that just happens to work in some exiting CD players).
Any Compact Disc player that strictly adhears to the CD format will not play these discs.
Best regards,
Ah, one important point:
/apparently/ affect the firmware of an iMac (!) but this could turn out to be a blessing in disguse....used in articles aimed at the general public, it's excellent amunition in the propoganda war against copy protection.
These disks are *not* Compact Discs!
It is notable that they do not display the CD logo (and are not permitted to by Phillips) because they do NOT follow the format of Compact Discs. In fact, in place of where the 'Compact Disc' logo normally would be is a warning informing you not to use this disk in a Personal Computer.
I agree this would be really awful of Apple if Apple did not repair them, but I expect they would (Apple customer services is excellent, if sometimes a little slow (at least IME), they will even repair stupid damage caused by the user at no charge.).
I expect that they are covering themselves in case this becomes an epedemic.
Of course it's worrying that these CD's can
Of course:
:-)
:-)
Though to be honest, that level of security would be be relevent in this particular instance
Should read:
Though to be honest, that level of security would *not* be relevent in this particular instance
I'm seeing a lot of very similar replies, so I guess I didn't explain it very well :-).
:-).
:-) Possibly just for authentication pherhaps....(though to be honest, that level of security would be be relevent in this particular instance :-)
Re posting this as a reply to myself so that more people will see it..
Encrypting the data on the card acts as a second layer, as the data on the card is encrypted by the card (as with, say a Sky TV card), but having that data itself also be encrypted against a public key and verifed by the device reading *as well* (which would be appropriate for something like say a secure door pass networked to a central server) would be appropriately secure (though biometrics would probably be more secure, if only they were reliable [HHOS]
By way of illustration:
*insert smart card in door pass*
Smart card: Hi, gimme some data I can use to authenticate you.
Reader: Here you are.
*Smart card churns over*
Smart card: Okay, here's some authentication data based on the input you gave me.
Reader: Cheers, let me check that data by decrypting it against my private key.
*Reader sends data to server*
*Server decrypts key, compares contents (a passphrase) against a stored hash of the users passphrase say (just as an example).*
Server: Yep, authenticates okay.
*Door opens*
This way, even if someone reverse engineered your card and built a reader, they could not get the data out unless they were also able to decrypt your authentication.
As a stage further, you could give the card a new 'key 'based on a one time pad after authenticating them too, which would be really secure (meaing the card would have be used before it was reporting missing or compromised, as you couldn't then simply make one identicle copy and keep using it because it would of course change each time it was used).
This *could* even work in something like Sky / OnDigitial boxes because they both already have modems which could be used to authenticate the new card (monthly, or yearly when a new card was inserted) but not obviously for realtime decoding of video data.
It's not about being 'scum' it's about doing business.
Unless the client starts out clearly stating that he expects to own the source you produce you don't have to roll over and get screwed (Why should you? Software is *expensive* to develop and small companies simply can't afford to pay for the rights to have software build exlusively for them, the development of sophisticated packages costs tens of thousands.)
I'm not advocating misleading people, if they are paying you many thousands of USD or UKP then one would expect they want the source, but don't think for one minute that you won't get screwed if they can do it legally.
It's not a tea party and your clients are not always your friends and companies arn't pulling punches, it's business. MOST companies are happy to screw you when it comes to paying your fee (as most contractors can testify to).
If they have a problem, say the software doesn't do something they expect it do, but they never explicitly asked for it, they will quite happly withold part of, or your entire fee. Or sue you if they think they can (even if only to get out of paying you). They are justing being smart and doing business, it's what capitalism is about.
It's very often NOT in his best interest to pay you to develop software that he then exlusively owns. That may cost him 20,000 UKP or more, when you can do it it for about 5,000 but you retain the rights.
To hand over the rights to the source of a non trivial app when you don't have to and just because they can't afford it makes you a fool. Giving the companies full rights to your work on the cheap just because they can't afford it and you feel sorry for them is bad business and certainly harms you (as a developer) and in the long run may very well harm the company you did the work for too (as you would always have to write *everything* you do from scratch, which would take much longer for you to do and so would cost them much more).
Oh yes, agree of course, but no I am talking about smart cards (though depending on the use).
:-).
Encrypting the data on the card acts as a second layer, as the data on the card is encrypted by the card (as with, say a Sky TV card), but having that data itself also be encrypted against a public key and verifed by the device reading *as well* (which would be appropriate for something like say a secure door pass networked to a central server) would be appropriately secure (though biometrics would probably be more secure, if only they were reliable [HHOS]
By way of illustration:
*insert smart card in door pass*
Smart card: Hi, gimme some data I can use to authenticate you.
Reader: Here you are.
*Smart card churns over*
Smart card: Okay, here's some authentication data based on the input you gave me.
Reader: Cheers, let me check that data by decrypting it against my private key.
*Reader sends data to server*
*Server decrypts key, compares contents (a passphrase) against a stored hash of the users passphrase.*
Server: Yep, authenticates okay.
*Door opens*
This way, even if someone reverse engineered your card and built a reader, they could not get the data out unless they were also able to decrypt your authentication.
If the card supported writing data to, you could give it a key based on a onetime pad after authenticating them too, which would be really secure (meaing the card would have be used before it was reporting missing or compromised, as you couldn't then simply make one identicle copy and keep using it because it would of course change each time it was used).
This is a neat trick, sure but it's not a big issue.
:)
:).
This could ALREADY be done by anyone with a smart card reader already (which is cheaper than a camera and a microscope I might add!).
Duh!
Sensitive data on cards are stored encrypted using the readers public key. The data on the smartcard can be sent from the reader to a centralised location (over a network, much like the way credit cards are verified in realtime just now) and then decoded and verified by a central point (or a selction of central points for redundancy).
It's a given that the smartcard could always be read - this has been accounted for in design of secure systems that use smart cards (we'll the good ones anyway, addmittedly there are quite few which don't (there are a lot of muppets in this industry)
Actually he's right.
If your hired to provide a solution, you own the code.
You don't even have to give, or even *show*, the client the source. It's yours.
The best way to assure this (and avoid legal action, which is unlikely to be taken by any small company at any rate, unless you are clearly ripping them off to the extent they belive they had a VERY good chance of winning) is to simply state in smal type 'all IP and origional work remains legal property of the author'.
The onus is on the client to show that he has purchased - or prove that he belived that he was purchsing the source.
No shit sherlock! An adapter? Well bugger me - I'd never have thought of that!
That would be yet another another thing I'd have to carry around.
No thanks, I'd much, much rather buy a Viao than carry around an adapter for something as trivially common as a VGA interface on such a large laptop.
Adapters are usually easy to damage, difficult to get replacements in a hurry (unless you are in a major city and near an retailer that just *happens* to have them in stock) and a hassle to carry around. THAT is why laptop manufacturers have *stopped* using adapters for things like VGA, Ethernet and Modems - people *hated* them.
AFAIC if you can afford an Apple display, you can probably afford a desktop Mac too (rendering the DVI interface on the laptop moot) as you could use the laptop in Firewire HD mode.
Your post was one long anal rant and uttterly fucking pointless.
The origional review was just fine IMHO you added nothing of value in all your abusive and comments, which attempted to make something out of nothing.
All the points you made were FUCKING OBVIOUS given the context and were never the less useful even if YOU are too short sighted to see why.
So heres one from me: FUCK OFF and stop wasting bandwidth, fucking Karma Whores *grumble*.....
I can see people in weathly Mac centric environments prefering a DVI connector, but as someone who takes it to various offices with regular non Apple PC equipment I find the VGA interface more useful and was a little surpised at this.
:-) but as a road warrioring unix/developer (rather than say, a graphic artist) this would actually slightly put me off getting one as it's very rare to find an expensive Apple LCD display going unused - very few places can afford one going spare.
:).
I'm not about to upgrade my 500Mz G4 PB (I can't afford the cost, I'll be paying for this one for another year and half I reckon
Where as in contrast I can usually find at least a 17 inch CRT going unsed in a comapany (and at home
Moderation Totals:
Redundant=3, Insightful=1, Informative=1, Overrated=1, Underrated=2, Total=8.
LOL. Talk about a waste of mod points on an FP!
I just want the UID of that sumbitch who wasted three just to burn my karma...
Damn no good hippy I'll bet.
I say we dust off and nuke the Middle East from orbit.
It's the only way to be sure.
Yes 12Mb is sufficient for video, that's 1.5 Megabytes - bear in mind there is no IP latency or TCP overhead here so it's fairly efficent. *Commercial* quality TV feeds are done using only 2 Megabytes/sec.
As for 'suck ass', well they work as advertised - they take Video in and allow you to capture it to disk, in a small portable form for just ~60 UKP. Very useful for slim line laptop users (who have no PCMCIA card slots).
The fact that you think they 'suck ass' doesn't detract from the fact that yes, it's possible and yes, such devices exist and yes, they work!
Lousy editing, grr :/
Of course USB has enough bandwidth for video! 12MB is way more than enough.
That aside, USB Video in converters have been avalible for years, litteraly. Don't you ever visit electronics shops?
Electronics shops from PC World and Dixons to Radio Shack and Wallmart stock them...
A quick search for the words "usb video capture" on Google throws up over five thousand results.
Please think before you post and stop wasting bandwidth!
I'll bet the Archos does though.
It has exactly the same storage capacity and much much less size, while costing the same (at least in Canary Wharf [Europe's Tallest Building and my local shopping center]). Also it's been avalible for much longer.
So again, the Nomad Jukebox isn't "The Best", there are far better options.
People tend to defend their purchasing decions feircly though, so it's amusing to see Nomad users stick up for their players, even against the likes of the Archos and the iPod, not a lot of Nomad users defending the Nomad against the Archos, wonder why?.
Having storage space being more important than transfer time doesn't make you a jerk. The Archos is also a great player
:)
However I think saying that the iPod is not the right choice because "10 gigs just doesn't cut it" because you have "1500 CDS" does.
No portable player that exists does that. You'd need ~80 GB of storage. You'd need *two* slimline hard disk to get close to that much storage (even then you'd still fall short).
So onces again:
"There is no way any objective person could think this unit is superior."
I realise that's inflammatory, but it's true!
Even if you discounted the iPod, the Archos is *still* about half the size of the Nomad (and so fit's in a pocket) and still has exactly the same storage capacity as the Nomad. The Nomad just isn't a great offering and never was compared to the competion.
Sure the long lasting battery life will be nice, but as I've said in other posts, I can fly ~to the other side of the globe before my iPod goes flat (and I recently did), and half way around the world that's the longest journey I'm ever likely to take! (Any longer than that and I'd be (a) in space or (b) just going the wrong way round the globe