though.. imagine huge virtual ads blocking your glasses, i just hope they run some system that would allow custom code to block them.
Better yet, imagine a nice system that blocked real world ads - through the glasses you just get nice black empty billboards.
Of course, how you'd manage that is up for questioning - you have to identify ads somehow (fine, have an image database and some bayesian system to predict similar ads), and then you have to be able to tell an add when you look at it from a variety of angles. The mathematics required for that sort of computer vision is, currently, not in place yet, and I wouldn't predict any breakthroughs any time soon.
So, massively future tech - you need processing power to trawl the database and provide filtering, and you need the math to handle the arbitrary viewing angles.
2.6 does indeed have the LSM integrated in - that's step of abstraction up from the original SELinux. It is essentially a set of appropriate hooks into the kernel for running SELinux style security. There are actually other packages (LIDS for instance) that use this system.
The end result is: We will soon have a very strong security model built in to the standard stable kernel. The sad thing is that it will be off by default, and you will still need the set of userland tools that use it.
We have an excellent opportunity (with the 2.6 release) to seriously increase the security of Linux systems. People need to start promoting LSM modules and programs NOW so that we can get this to be the default state of most installed Linux boxes.
So, we have yet another security hole. No surprises there - they will come up eventually. It sounds as if the patching is reasonably prompt (though next month doesn't sounds that fast - hopefully that means it is well tested and it won't break anything like MS patches can). Ultimately though, we don't see many holes for MacOS X. Yes, I'm sure they exist, but they are a lot less frequent than some.
For instance, there's still this unpatched hole in IE that MS doesn't seem inclined to do much about right now. So much for their "on average a patch in 24 hours" policy they were claiming. Looks like they'll get their patch out around the same time Apple does. I guess we hope that means that they've tested it this time...
Let me get this straigt again. Its trying to prove it owns part of linux in the case with IBM. And now its going to use sue Google because they are using linux which they have yet to prove they own parts of. Great. Isn't that like using a loan for collateral for another loan?
It worked for Enron didn't it?
Well, at least long enough to let the tope execs wander away with plenty of cash (and a mild slap on the wrist).
Enlightenment had some real "best of breed" implementations of a number of window management functions - in fact E16.6 is still ahead of most of the field in a number of areas. The things that, for me, enlightnment got really right were:
- Multiple desktops and pagers: Nothing else I've used comes close to the ease with which you can manipulate windows around enlightenment's multiple virtual desktops. It was elegant, had a wide variety of intuitive ways to do things (so you could try the "obvious" thing and it generally always worked), and was visually slick. I still use enlightenment because I can't stand other multiple desk implementations - they are always lacking some element that E did so well. Multiple desktops were just natural in E.
- Task switching: going between different windows in E is again, well handled, partly because they elegantly managed to provide almost a dozen ways to do it. This meant it was easy to just use whichever method got you there quickest.
- Control over windows: I use the window grouping, window border styles and remember functions all the time. This is a best of breed, in that I've not encountered anything that allows this sort of slick control, but it was never really "as it should be". That is, it was still a little clunky in comparison to other things that E handled so simply and efficiently.
So, with E now rounding out the libraries and starting to look toward making an E17 (hopefully), I'm hoping they can implement all that they did so well, and add a few other nice bits:
- tabbed windows: This is an obvious good thing, and needs to be done well, with the sort of depth of handling that E provided to multiple desktops. Interestingly it also seems to naturally lend itself toward working with window group functions (which were still a little clunky in E16). Hopefully window groups and tabbed windows can find a nice fusion into a truly slick and intuitive interface.
But surely that can be solved via a "tile tabs withint active window" feature etc. I think tabbed windows like PWM and Fluxbox are still in their infancy, but they are definitely a fine way forward. More systems need to implement this and extend the idea and functionality so it becomes as invaluable as, say, multiple desktops (well executes - like in enlightenment).
That does assume that domain names are very hard to guess, and roughly evenly distributed over those 50 million. Try hotmail.com, yahoo.com, aol.com and a few others and you'll get some rapid obvious hits. Come on, domain trawling is hardly difficult. Sure, there is a nice hefty percentage you'll miss, but that doesn't mean you won't still pick up half the email addresses with ease. Yes, it might not crack you're email address. Good for you. It doesn't help the other 50,000 people who do get cracked easily though.
Email addresses are DESIGNED to be guessable. Passwords, in theory, are not. And yet passwords are still easy.
Or, to summarise: The goal is not to crack everything, but merely to crack a large enough percentage to make the excercise worthwhile. Are you honestly trying to tell me that I couldn't guess a sufficient number of domains to seed my dictionary with to manage to get a decent percentage (if we have a list of 1 million email addresses, then even cracking 10% looks worthwhile!)
I repeat: this is not a solution. Sure it makes it harder, but it will not stop it in any way shape or form.
None of this is that surprising. Why re-invent the wheel? Especially when you can repackage the wheel under your own brand name, add some bevels, and shift the axle off center then call it your own.
What is somewhat interesting is that, at least in this (very early stage) MS is claiming that this is the new basis for all their UI drawing - the often suggested "totally SVG interface" that has been bandied about on Slashdot. And to be fair, things are starting to head that way. GNOME and KDE already do SVG icons etc. So the next question is, how quickly is the FOSS community going to have something like this already implemented, because they seem to have a head start ATM (though no direct push as MS has). And when it is implemented, how similar/compatile will the implementations be...
Do you know how easy it is to break a few passwords on any decent sized/etc/shadow file? Do you know how much easier it is to do so if the passwords are people names, and logical variations thereof? Send me an encrypted list of 100,000 average email addresses, and I could probably tell you at least 50,000 in a day or two with a very simple dictionary attack.
There's an implicit bit of thinking there that "innovation"=="more features and buttons" which has, I guess, been promoted by a lot of software houses in the effort to sell their latest set of minor new bells and whistles. It's still a "too many clocks" syndrome. Rather than adding a new clock to the car and calling it innovation, why not redesign the engine - or create some cunning gearing system that gives the benefits of a manual with the ease of use of an automatic.
Innovative new office products might have LESS bell and whistle features, and instead have some cunning new system that SIMPLIFIES the interface and simply makes it easier to do what you want to do.
Don't mistake "innovation" for "bloat", bloat is what happens when you used half assed quick and easy innovation instead really doing something creative.
At the moment there is a lot of overhead going to RIAA members - but just think about what might happen if this is made successful. If all you have to do to be able to sell (and via associated web sites, popularity tracking etc.) market your music is package it in [DRM format of choice] and put it on the [music store of choice] then don't you think you'll find a few artists cutting out the middle man and going straight to [Apple, MS, whoever]?
You see, right now Apple charges money for the software required to encode your music into a suitable format to put onto iTMS. MS will almost undountedly do the same. But as long as that is easier than trying to get a big record company contract (that will screw you anyway) people will go for it.
So now we have a situation where, whoever is successful at this doesn't have to pay record companies, and can gouge the artists directly themselves.
If I was the RIAA I would be worried about this - they are about to get replaced if they're not careful. Then again, they've never struck me as that bright, so I suspect they'll never see it coming.
I have to say I had similar issue with the book - I made it further through, about half way if I recall, before it all got to be to much effort. All the "fantasy" elements just seemed far too forced. Rather than seeming to fit together in some nice semi consistent world it felt more like a mishmash attempting to place lots of artificial detail in. Detail alone does not create a well constructed fantasy world. Consistent well thought out detail - well now, that helps a lot. Perdido just seemed very much like a hodge podge of other fantasy all squashed together rather than a new fantasy vision.
Ballmer said there were 17 critical vulnerabilities in Windows 2000 in the 150-day period and that Red Hat had considerably more. But look at the list: it shows only 16 vulnerabilities for all flavors of Linux for the entire year of 2000. CERT only lists the big ones, but Ballmer did say "critical". It makes you wonder where he got his numbers from or how he defines "critical".
My guess is that "critical" for Windows is anything that allows a remote root via core windows stuff. "Critical" for RedHat probably meant counting anything that showed up in RedHat Errata during the time period, which usually includes minor problems in programs I don't even have installed.
"Should there be a reason to believe that code that comes from a variety of people around the world would be higher-quality than from people who do it professionally? Why is its pedigree better than code done in a controlled fashion? I don't get that,"
I can see that: random security modules being submitted by guys at NSA. I mean really, what does the NSA know about computer security? Clearly the MS campus is streets ahead of those unprofessional losers...
"There is no road map for Linux, nobody who has his rear end on the line. We think it's an advantage a commercial company can bring--we provide a road map, indemnify customers. They know where to send e-mail." Steve Ballmer said. He neglected to add "It's not like we read that email, but at least you know where they can stick it - sorry, I mean send it", but was clearly thinking it.
I wonder how worried MS is by this, as it certainly is proving popular. It is potentially a strong foothold in the market for Apple, and knowing how Microsoft likes to get it's fingers in as many pies as it can, you've got to know they're going to decide they want a slice of this one soon.
So, do you think Apple can hold out if Microsoft decided to bundle "Miscrosoft Music Store" in the next version of Windows Media Player? Would people bother to download iTunes to use iTMS, or would they just use what was put in front of them? Comes down to marketing too I guess...
It will certainly prove to be an interesting fight.
A move to OpenOffice in such an organization would entail the same conversion cost, the same ongoing training cost over the forseeable future as well as instantaneously over the entire organization, vastly dwarfing any licensing and administrative costs of ownership.
I think the theory with OpenOffice would be: If you ever have to do another conversion to a new system later, it will be much easier if you've used open, well documented file formats (and presuming you're switching to something with open, well documented file formats). Avoiding the lockin is the key, in theory. whether that's enough incentive in practice is another question.
Yes, it costs to switch to other products, but that is a perfectly double edged sword. If a new business sets up with Linux desktops running OpenOffice, then it will cost to switch to some MS solution.
The cost of initially setting up the system is pretty similar for either side really.
Claims of costs to switch are, largely, irrelevant to a survey about business deciding which system to go with.
Seeing as users of these operating systems can deactivate the DRM by, um, using the operating system, which the student also pointed out, where does use of these OSes stand? Are you not allowed to point out that the system fails to work for anything but Windows (okay, and MacOS X)? I presume not.
I mean really, this was the most retarded DRM scheme I've ever seen. In installs a Windows driver to screw up readback by using a windows Autorun on the CD. They were sufficiently cunning to include a MacOS X driver too. Anyone using anything else won't even notice there's any DRM at all. Bafflingly stupid. And you can disable Autorun can't you? I seem to recall trying to do such things many years ago when I used Windows simply because it was bloody annoying.
The only problem with this is that you then have to precisely [sic?] resize the windows so that stuff is aligned well, whereas on a dual monitor setup
That's where having a decent window manager comes in handy. A lot of window managers manage to have slightly sticky eddges to windows (that it, the window sticks slightly when you drag it past the edge of another window), which makes aligning windows easy. As for maximization - I haven't checked other WMs lately but Enlightenment has a very nice "maximise to available space" function, which maximises a window so that it maximises any windows it overlaps, but tiles up against any windows it doesn't. That makes maximising two windows pretty easy - drag one to where you want it, then use the maximise to available area function on each. Simple.
Of course if you are on Windows you are screwed. Windows has always sucked at managing windows. You can download hacks, pacthes, and fixes to help, but in general it just sucks.
however, it must be hard on the slang users. It just sounds wussy saying "Yeah, I'm really clockin' that pink and purple slangin' them keys, boy"
Because lord knows Australians have enough difficulty coming up with creative slang as it is... Have you ever actually heard real hard core Aussie slang (as ooposed to Hollywood interpretations on Aussie slang)? Trust me, practically nothing presents a problem with regard to creating good sounding slang in Australia.
As a side note, we have similar notes in NZ, again in different sizes and colours (though less garish colour combinations than Australia).The 5 dollar note for instance is mostly just red and orange. Once you get used to it this system is remarkably superior. Certainly the polymer notes are a brilliant idea.
CygWin the Linux-like environment for Windows. PuTTY a free SSH client for Windows. Dev-C++ a free C++ compiler. I use VC++ 6.0, but this is free, and I think it's pretty good. GNU-EMacs for Windows. I usually install it, but use Vi more.
Don't you think there's some serious redundancy in all of that? Cygwin includes all manner of goodies, including OpenSSH, and a windows native rxvt (no need for PuTTY!) ncftp (no need for other ftp software), gcc, which kind of takes care of free C compilers, and last I saw included GNU-Emacs and XEmacs if you so desired. I'm not sure whether they have a nethack package at the moment. I'm sure it's coming.
You would do far better to piggyback music on another music track. Steganography will work on pretty much any binary file, it's just that some work better than others because the format provides more "tamper area" of relatively insignificant bits to play with.
I'm sure if you have a low enough bitrate MP3 you can encode a reasonable amount of data in it without a overly perceptable change in the audio.
The real problem with all of this is that steganograhy of this kind requires sender and reciever to have a copy of the original binary file - which means you need to have the original image/music available as well, otherwise no one can extract anything. At that point it is pretty easy to show that the binary diffs amount to some encoding of the copyrighted work.
Why go to all this trouble? I mean really, if you want it that bad why not just BUY it?
Slashdot Mirror
though.. imagine huge virtual ads blocking your glasses, i just hope they run some system that would allow custom code to block them.
Better yet, imagine a nice system that blocked real world ads - through the glasses you just get nice black empty billboards.
Of course, how you'd manage that is up for questioning - you have to identify ads somehow (fine, have an image database and some bayesian system to predict similar ads), and then you have to be able to tell an add when you look at it from a variety of angles. The mathematics required for that sort of computer vision is, currently, not in place yet, and I wouldn't predict any breakthroughs any time soon.
So, massively future tech - you need processing power to trawl the database and provide filtering, and you need the math to handle the arbitrary viewing angles.
Still it would be nice if it ever arrives.
Jedidiah
2.6 does indeed have the LSM integrated in - that's step of abstraction up from the original SELinux. It is essentially a set of appropriate hooks into the kernel for running SELinux style security. There are actually other packages (LIDS for instance) that use this system.
The end result is: We will soon have a very strong security model built in to the standard stable kernel. The sad thing is that it will be off by default, and you will still need the set of userland tools that use it.
We have an excellent opportunity (with the 2.6 release) to seriously increase the security of Linux systems. People need to start promoting LSM modules and programs NOW so that we can get this to be the default state of most installed Linux boxes.
Jedidiah
So, we have yet another security hole. No surprises there - they will come up eventually. It sounds as if the patching is reasonably prompt (though next month doesn't sounds that fast - hopefully that means it is well tested and it won't break anything like MS patches can). Ultimately though, we don't see many holes for MacOS X. Yes, I'm sure they exist, but they are a lot less frequent than some.
For instance, there's still this unpatched hole in IE that MS doesn't seem inclined to do much about right now. So much for their "on average a patch in 24 hours" policy they were claiming. Looks like they'll get their patch out around the same time Apple does. I guess we hope that means that they've tested it this time...
Jedidiah
Let me get this straigt again. Its trying to prove it owns part of linux in the case with IBM. And now its going to use sue Google because they are using linux which they have yet to prove they own parts of. Great. Isn't that like using a loan for collateral for another loan?
It worked for Enron didn't it?
Well, at least long enough to let the tope execs wander away with plenty of cash (and a mild slap on the wrist).
Enlightenment had some real "best of breed" implementations of a number of window management functions - in fact E16.6 is still ahead of most of the field in a number of areas. The things that, for me, enlightnment got really right were:
- Multiple desktops and pagers: Nothing else I've used comes close to the ease with which you can manipulate windows around enlightenment's multiple virtual desktops. It was elegant, had a wide variety of intuitive ways to do things (so you could try the "obvious" thing and it generally always worked), and was visually slick. I still use enlightenment because I can't stand other multiple desk implementations - they are always lacking some element that E did so well. Multiple desktops were just natural in E.
- Task switching: going between different windows in E is again, well handled, partly because they elegantly managed to provide almost a dozen ways to do it. This meant it was easy to just use whichever method got you there quickest.
- Control over windows: I use the window grouping, window border styles and remember functions all the time. This is a best of breed, in that I've not encountered anything that allows this sort of slick control, but it was never really "as it should be". That is, it was still a little clunky in comparison to other things that E handled so simply and efficiently.
So, with E now rounding out the libraries and starting to look toward making an E17 (hopefully), I'm hoping they can implement all that they did so well, and add a few other nice bits:
- tabbed windows: This is an obvious good thing, and needs to be done well, with the sort of depth of handling that E provided to multiple desktops. Interestingly it also seems to naturally lend itself toward working with window group functions (which were still a little clunky in E16). Hopefully window groups and tabbed windows can find a nice fusion into a truly slick and intuitive interface.
Jedidiah
But surely that can be solved via a "tile tabs withint active window" feature etc. I think tabbed windows like PWM and Fluxbox are still in their infancy, but they are definitely a fine way forward. More systems need to implement this and extend the idea and functionality so it becomes as invaluable as, say, multiple desktops (well executes - like in enlightenment).
That does assume that domain names are very hard to guess, and roughly evenly distributed over those 50 million. Try hotmail.com, yahoo.com, aol.com and a few others and you'll get some rapid obvious hits. Come on, domain trawling is hardly difficult. Sure, there is a nice hefty percentage you'll miss, but that doesn't mean you won't still pick up half the email addresses with ease. Yes, it might not crack you're email address. Good for you. It doesn't help the other 50,000 people who do get cracked easily though.
Email addresses are DESIGNED to be guessable. Passwords, in theory, are not. And yet passwords are still easy.
Or, to summarise: The goal is not to crack everything, but merely to crack a large enough percentage to make the excercise worthwhile. Are you honestly trying to tell me that I couldn't guess a sufficient number of domains to seed my dictionary with to manage to get a decent percentage (if we have a list of 1 million email addresses, then even cracking 10% looks worthwhile!)
I repeat: this is not a solution. Sure it makes it harder, but it will not stop it in any way shape or form.
None of this is that surprising. Why re-invent the wheel? Especially when you can repackage the wheel under your own brand name, add some bevels, and shift the axle off center then call it your own.
What is somewhat interesting is that, at least in this (very early stage) MS is claiming that this is the new basis for all their UI drawing - the often suggested "totally SVG interface" that has been bandied about on Slashdot. And to be fair, things are starting to head that way. GNOME and KDE already do SVG icons etc. So the next question is, how quickly is the FOSS community going to have something like this already implemented, because they seem to have a head start ATM (though no direct push as MS has). And when it is implemented, how similar/compatile will the implementations be...
We shall see.
Jedidiah.
Do you know how easy it is to break a few passwords on any decent sized /etc/shadow file? Do you know how much easier it is to do so if the passwords are people names, and logical variations thereof? Send me an encrypted list of 100,000 average email addresses, and I could probably tell you at least 50,000 in a day or two with a very simple dictionary attack.
This is not a solution
There's an implicit bit of thinking there that "innovation"=="more features and buttons" which has, I guess, been promoted by a lot of software houses in the effort to sell their latest set of minor new bells and whistles. It's still a "too many clocks" syndrome. Rather than adding a new clock to the car and calling it innovation, why not redesign the engine - or create some cunning gearing system that gives the benefits of a manual with the ease of use of an automatic.
Innovative new office products might have LESS bell and whistle features, and instead have some cunning new system that SIMPLIFIES the interface and simply makes it easier to do what you want to do.
Don't mistake "innovation" for "bloat", bloat is what happens when you used half assed quick and easy innovation instead really doing something creative.
Jedidiah
At the moment there is a lot of overhead going to RIAA members - but just think about what might happen if this is made successful. If all you have to do to be able to sell (and via associated web sites, popularity tracking etc.) market your music is package it in [DRM format of choice] and put it on the [music store of choice] then don't you think you'll find a few artists cutting out the middle man and going straight to [Apple, MS, whoever]?
You see, right now Apple charges money for the software required to encode your music into a suitable format to put onto iTMS. MS will almost undountedly do the same. But as long as that is easier than trying to get a big record company contract (that will screw you anyway) people will go for it.
So now we have a situation where, whoever is successful at this doesn't have to pay record companies, and can gouge the artists directly themselves.
If I was the RIAA I would be worried about this - they are about to get replaced if they're not careful. Then again, they've never struck me as that bright, so I suspect they'll never see it coming.
Jedidiah
I have to say I had similar issue with the book - I made it further through, about half way if I recall, before it all got to be to much effort. All the "fantasy" elements just seemed far too forced. Rather than seeming to fit together in some nice semi consistent world it felt more like a mishmash attempting to place lots of artificial detail in. Detail alone does not create a well constructed fantasy world. Consistent well thought out detail - well now, that helps a lot. Perdido just seemed very much like a hodge podge of other fantasy all squashed together rather than a new fantasy vision.
Jedidiah
From Groklaw:
Ballmer said there were 17 critical vulnerabilities in Windows 2000 in the 150-day period and that Red Hat had considerably more. But look at the list: it shows only 16 vulnerabilities for all flavors of Linux for the entire year of 2000. CERT only lists the big ones, but Ballmer did say "critical". It makes you wonder where he got his numbers from or how he defines "critical".
My guess is that "critical" for Windows is anything that allows a remote root via core windows stuff. "Critical" for RedHat probably meant counting anything that showed up in RedHat Errata during the time period, which usually includes minor problems in programs I don't even have installed.
"Should there be a reason to believe that code that comes from a variety of people around the world would be higher-quality than from people who do it professionally? Why is its pedigree better than code done in a controlled fashion? I don't get that,"
I can see that: random security modules being submitted by guys at NSA. I mean really, what does the NSA know about computer security? Clearly the MS campus is streets ahead of those unprofessional losers...
Jedidiah
"There is no road map for Linux, nobody who has his rear end on the line. We think it's an advantage a commercial company can bring--we provide a road map, indemnify customers. They know where to send e-mail." Steve Ballmer said. He neglected to add "It's not like we read that email, but at least you know where they can stick it - sorry, I mean send it", but was clearly thinking it.
Until of course the artists decide to cut out the middle man and go straight to Apple.
Of course if that ever happens Apple Records really will have a perfectly valid suit against Apple Computer, and well... Hmm...
Jedidiah
It is an obvious corollary to Sturgeon's law:
In any sufficiently large collection of people, 90% of them will be idiots
Jedidiah
I wonder how worried MS is by this, as it certainly is proving popular. It is potentially a strong foothold in the market for Apple, and knowing how Microsoft likes to get it's fingers in as many pies as it can, you've got to know they're going to decide they want a slice of this one soon.
So, do you think Apple can hold out if Microsoft decided to bundle "Miscrosoft Music Store" in the next version of Windows Media Player? Would people bother to download iTunes to use iTMS, or would they just use what was put in front of them? Comes down to marketing too I guess...
It will certainly prove to be an interesting fight.
Jedidiah
I think the theory with OpenOffice would be: If you ever have to do another conversion to a new system later, it will be much easier if you've used open, well documented file formats (and presuming you're switching to something with open, well documented file formats). Avoiding the lockin is the key, in theory. whether that's enough incentive in practice is another question.
Jedidiah
Yes, it costs to switch to other products, but that is a perfectly double edged sword. If a new business sets up with Linux desktops running OpenOffice, then it will cost to switch to some MS solution.
The cost of initially setting up the system is pretty similar for either side really.
Claims of costs to switch are, largely, irrelevant to a survey about business deciding which system to go with.
Jedidiah
Seeing as users of these operating systems can deactivate the DRM by, um, using the operating system, which the student also pointed out, where does use of these OSes stand? Are you not allowed to point out that the system fails to work for anything but Windows (okay, and MacOS X)? I presume not.
I mean really, this was the most retarded DRM scheme I've ever seen. In installs a Windows driver to screw up readback by using a windows Autorun on the CD. They were sufficiently cunning to include a MacOS X driver too. Anyone using anything else won't even notice there's any DRM at all. Bafflingly stupid. And you can disable Autorun can't you? I seem to recall trying to do such things many years ago when I used Windows simply because it was bloody annoying.
Jedidiah
That's where having a decent window manager comes in handy. A lot of window managers manage to have slightly sticky eddges to windows (that it, the window sticks slightly when you drag it past the edge of another window), which makes aligning windows easy. As for maximization - I haven't checked other WMs lately but Enlightenment has a very nice "maximise to available space" function, which maximises a window so that it maximises any windows it overlaps, but tiles up against any windows it doesn't. That makes maximising two windows pretty easy - drag one to where you want it, then use the maximise to available area function on each. Simple.
Of course if you are on Windows you are screwed.
Windows has always sucked at managing windows. You can download hacks, pacthes, and fixes to help, but in general it just sucks.
Jedidiah.
Because lord knows Australians have enough difficulty coming up with creative slang as it is... Have you ever actually heard real hard core Aussie slang (as ooposed to Hollywood interpretations on Aussie slang)? Trust me, practically nothing presents a problem with regard to creating good sounding slang in Australia.
As a side note, we have similar notes in NZ, again in different sizes and colours (though less garish colour combinations than Australia).The 5 dollar note for instance is mostly just red and orange. Once you get used to it this system is remarkably superior. Certainly the polymer notes are a brilliant idea.
Jedidiah
You quote:
CygWin the Linux-like environment for Windows.
PuTTY a free SSH client for Windows.
Dev-C++ a free C++ compiler. I use VC++ 6.0, but this is free, and I think it's pretty good.
GNU-EMacs for Windows. I usually install it, but use Vi more.
Don't you think there's some serious redundancy in all of that? Cygwin includes all manner of goodies, including OpenSSH, and a windows native rxvt (no need for PuTTY!) ncftp (no need for other ftp software), gcc, which kind of takes care of free C compilers, and last I saw included GNU-Emacs and XEmacs if you so desired. I'm not sure whether they have a nethack package at the moment. I'm sure it's coming.
Jedidiah
You would do far better to piggyback music on another music track. Steganography will work on pretty much any binary file, it's just that some work better than others because the format provides more "tamper area" of relatively insignificant bits to play with.
I'm sure if you have a low enough bitrate MP3 you can encode a reasonable amount of data in it without a overly perceptable change in the audio.
The real problem with all of this is that steganograhy of this kind requires sender and reciever to have a copy of the original binary file - which means you need to have the original image/music available as well, otherwise no one can extract anything. At that point it is pretty easy to show that the binary diffs amount to some encoding of the copyrighted work.
Why go to all this trouble? I mean really, if you want it that bad why not just BUY it?
Jedidiah