I saw your pictures and I must say that's a real bang up job. However, you should note that it's rather foolish to ship a tower in the size box you shipped it in.
If you absolutly need to ship PC parts, disassemble them and ship them in containers with lots of foam, packing "popcorn", etc. Even empty ATX cases arrive in boxes two and three times their actual size.
I'm not defending UPS nor am I saying they are at fault. The processes involved in sorting boxes often include large belts and ramps, and yes, two and three feet drops. The belts that load boxes onto FedEx planes often have five foot drops at the top. And this is FedEx.
This is why you need insurance, and you need to be wise about packaging your goods. I sure hope you didn't pack all the things pictured in a 4 cu foot box you showed that was beat to death (probably from stuff rolling around inside of it).
I would go the route of getting moeny from UPS if you insured it. Other than that you're screwed.
People are getting it all wrong. I2 isn't the "next" or "new" Internet and it wasn't created for brand new applications or new "mindsets" for doing things because it's so blistering fast. It was created because schools can't afford commercial pipes. It's less expensive to connect schools together directly than connect them to a national, commercial provider at these high speeds.
I2 is primarily fast because it isn't used all that much. You don't have thousands of AOL dialups clogging up the network, @Home/Time Warner boxen downloading pirated movies, or the psychic friends network using it to do their VoIP. That all eats bandwidth. Instead, you have the occasional geek downloading a slackware distribution, or browsing the Computer Science department of another university. If suddenly all the schools would allow traffic over their commercial pipes to access their I2 routers, I'm sure the network would slow down now seeing it's accessible to the public - along with all the abuses and bandwidth eating applications.
I guess the best analogy to this would be comparing it to an underground tunnel between schools only for academic use, compared to a giant highway for public use. The underground tunnel doesn't nearly have the capacity of the massive highway, but is much faster. So just because something is fast doesn't mean its on the edge of technology or is, in fact, anything special.
I have used I2 and it is quite fast, but what can you get on it? The latest well hyperlinked personal page of a student in a nearby school? This makes it loose much of the reason why the real Internet is so popular -- it's a space where you can find anything. But I2 defeats this purpose by limiting what the network can connect to, and thus its usefulness. It may be useful at testing new applications, like an HDTV stream, but since you're not doing this on a public network to begin with it's applications are limited to your own, highly restrictive network. You can't say you've done something new when all you've done is create an exclusive network that doesn't address the real problems of networks anyway - like last mile access and exponentional bandwidth increases. IMO, I2 is a way for schools to have a fast link to each other without paying the huge costs associated with a 1 GB link to the national backbone. That's all it is, and that's all it probably will be.
I worked for the Columbus Dispatch in Columbus, Ohio as an intern in the photography department.
This article, while brining up a few interesting points about digital and how it may or could change things, what I actually saw and was a part of painted a different picture, but this may be only unique to this one newspaper.
The photographers were all armed with Canon EOS digitals, I had my own Olympus E-10 and some had the new Nikon D1X, which is quite possibly the greatest digital camera to ever exist.
Anyway, most had 256 MB CF cards or in the case of the Canon digitals, several GB PCMCIA drives which could hold thousands of full quality, often times RAW (uncompressed) pictures. Those with CF cards could hold about 40 raw pictures per CF, or around 200 1/2.8 JPEGs (still very high quality). The best part of all is we could share the cards, so if one didn't need 50 MB on their card and someone else did, we could use their card. Try doing that with a half exposed roll of film.
Most of us shot in high quality JPEG, because you couldn't tell the difference between that and raw if you didn't magnify the image 5x. This saved space, which is still valuable, and affored us the quality we needed for front page spreads.
When we would finish a shoot, we would save all the digital images on CD. The film guys, on the other hand, would throw away the negatives that didn't make the cut. There was simply no place to put them and the care and cost of chemicals required to maintain them was too expensive. However, all our images were backed up on CDs and filed in a safe. Pure, digital copies of our work. In other cases we would have a laptop on site and would simply slide our CF in with a PCMCIA adapter and in 5 minutes have 200 more shots ready.
I think the situation this woman speaks of is that like the early days of digital, when you were limited to $250 32 MB cards. However, today a 320 MB CompactFlash card can be had for under $100, and a 1 GB micro-drive is around $400. I rarely think a photographer brings enough film for 3500+ pictures on one shoot, which one could fit on a microdrive with a small laptop (over 100 roles of film). Plus, the 2 GB and 5 GB microdrive versions are just on the horizon, offering even more on field capacity.
In fact, if anything, the cheapness of digital makes photographers take more pictures. Lets not forget the time factor. There is NO developing, no scanning, etc. You can take a laptop and even transfer the images back by modem if needed, or plug into the nearest network. And today, when all layout is done on computers, this just makes sense.
I think this woman tried digital when it was in its infancy and backed away from it and now has a film only attitude. Well, she should really try the Nikon D1X SLR and a 1 GB microdrive. I think she'll be leaving film for good when she gets some of the images from that camera (which technically has greater resolution and dynamic range than a 35 MM negative).
Even my Olympus E-10, a prosumer model, rivals film to the point where the images from the camera are sharper than any scans I can get from a 35 MM negative.
Also, there was something mentioned about the durability of film vs. digital. Well, may I remind you that film cannot be kept in hot temperatures. This is why people refrigerate their film (before and after exposure). Digital has no problems in hot weather, albeit the CCD does produce more noise when the temperature rises, it doesn't completly fade away the picture like film would. In the cold, dew forms on film negatives and moisture damage is a huge problem. With digital this isn't a problem at all, and most CCDs perform better in the cold.
The best part about digital is that its a growing field. It follows Moore's law, and in five years we could be looking at over 20 mega-pixels of resolution at all types of ISOs (film has only one ISO while the D1X can go from 100-800 by pressing a button), greater than medium format and rivaling large format. This is greater resolution than 35 MM will ever be able to provide.
All through that women's article I find it odd no one has mentioned she is attacking digital archival. She seems to think digital will reduce the nation's photographic libraries, when other mediums, such as print, etc. have been the poster child for digital archival and everyone is so glad the old days of microfilm and paper are over. In fact, digital archival for photographs is easily suited for the task. It's much easier to query a database for "September 11th 2nd Plane" than look through an entire seleve of negatives, or go through a convoluted filing system. When I worked, all digital images would have to have a title, a description, where it was taken, and the identity of anyone pictured (if not a crowd shot). This is what we would do after we get back. The embedded EXIF data in the image, as recorded by the camera, took care of the date, ISO, shutter speed, and other technical information (again, not present with film). This would then go onto an online storage and retreival system, and backed up on CD.
Now as for being an on-site editor, as someone mentioned, and having different goals, this just simply isn't true. An editor and a photographer both have the same goal: getting a good picture. When the photographer arrives back, often times there simply are no *really* good pictures to choose from (you know the feeling of "This one's good enough, go with it."). However, with digital's instant preview of a captured image, a photographer can instantly gauge his efforts and dynamically adjust his shooting style based upon his output. He can progressivly work to attain a greater image by building upon the one he just took, which is impossible with film. This is what we did at an event, and since we were editing on site, we had the benefit to go and take more pictures. Back in the film room with a magnifying glass you are only limited to the selection of what was took -- in many cases that one picture you "had in mind" was lost forever. However at the scene we have the benefit of doing a reshoot without even having to step foot in a darkroom.
My only current complaint with digital is the time factor. Film is still faster at taking images, while digital sometimes makes you wait while saving and compressing images. This is a temporary problem which will soon be corrected as embedded processors get faster and portable storage write speeds increase. Still, this is one area where film wins. Still though, the two and three second waits of today's professional models are getting very close to what film is capable of and burst mode on many cameras gives good results, especially when you're in the middle of a press mob and you only have a few seconds to snap that picture of your subject -- every frame per second counts.
Now, it seems, film is nearing death and the last survivors are clinging onto it like one would with a sick family member. Digital is here to stay, is growing, and no matter what arguments that woman seems to claim, it's the new way for all types of photography. I sent her an e-mail with a link to the D1X and a copy of this post. I think she's just about to change her mind...
A locked down system is as useful as a tool as a hammer is if it were barred from making marks in it's head.
Clearly, the process of developing suggests an errorenous progression; changes are made gradually. With the inability to make changes, one loses the ability to develop.
Most companies have a locked down test system, which serves as a scientific control, but having a locked down system for which to work and develop would yeild an environment where very litte work could get done. You need to be able to change a system to make something, its as simple as that. Imagine being requested to build a new house, or better the foundation of said house if the ground couldn't be touched.
Since when does the Internet considered a particle wave system? 'Holographic packets' sounds more like an invention of Steve Gibson than a method with sound scientific and technical backing...
Use VNC (free; open source; multi-platform). If you have the multiple machines networked on a resonable network (10 Mbps is fine, 100 Mbps is completly lag free -- even works OK through cable modems). Then all you need to know is the IP address of the machine, and you get an instant view of the desktop and you are able to move the mouse around, use the keyboard, etc. It's kind of like PC Anywhere, without the bloat and it's cross-platform and performs very well. If you have a DNS server, you can even assign computers a name.
No switches or cable to deal with, and best of all you can use multiple machines at the same time (e.g. at a resolution of 1600x1200 with 800x600 VNC windows), and also use your main computer. With KVM switches, you physically switch everything over, which when done many times risks damage. Not to mention all those cables going to all the different machines to do the switching.
KVM is a thing of the past, right next to the 300 baud modem rack hosting the ASCII art BBS, when you needed to view the screens of several 386's. It also doesn't make sense, to say, use a KVM switch for 10 computers. However, with VNC you have the limits (on a private network anyway) of the entire IP dotted-decimal.
The activity light is still on rock solid, and there's nothing wrong with the modem. No, I don't have any of the worms because I'm using a broadband firewall.
At my last count, I receive around 500 attempts by these worms each day, usually by other cable users. Before I got a firewall, loading up my Apache log file crashed notepad. My favorite past time has become tracerouting the IPs to see what nearby city they're in. I live in Columbus, Ohio and can easily discern those from nearby towns and locations throughout the city (e.g. pos1-2-colswest or pos4-0-dublin).
I then like to load up Telnet and go searching for root.exe on these computers. When dumped into a root cmd, a carefully placed command copies a file from a share on my computer to the other machine. The file, of course, is an MS update patch or lately one of the clean utilities posted around the net. Another command runs the program and when finished the system is reboot and no longer bothers me.
Now there's an idea...fixing worm systems through their own security holes. I even wrote a little script to automatically attempt to 'fix' an attacking system. Don't just bitch when the same IP keeps pounding you...do something about it!! There's plenty of info out there, and you can get most of the info from the attacking HTTP GET strings.
Seriously, this isn't a product plug and I know Capital One isn't the best credit card company to ever exist, but I have been defrauded a few times on eBay, and each time I have used my Capital One credit card through PayPal. Capital One has an online protection program and all you have to do is call them up and explain the situation. They sometimes ask you to fax or e-mail documents and then they stop the charge by doing a charge-back.
The process is completly transparent, and Capital One fraud investigators then automatically take over if, neccessary. They know you don't HAVE to pay the bill, and most people won't if they have been the victim of a fraud.
The key is to do it quick, e.g. if you suspect you are dealing with a fraud, (e.g. "I just shipped it."), stop the charge. The worse that could happen is there will be a delay. Another option would be to stop the posting of the charge, but keep the charge. In this way, the seller is still guaranteed the funds because they are set aside for them, but they don't actually have them in their hands.
This has worked good, and is why you should NEVER transfer money from your checking or bank account, because it's much EASIER to get credit back than your *real* money. PayPal says a bank transfer is the prefered method, and with good reason because they don't end up eating the cost when one their accounts commits fraud. You do.
Somewhere in a file sharing chat room...
on
RIAA to DoS Pirates?
·
· Score: 3, Funny
R7I7AAHaxor from
DHCP-stp.loc-5-1.riaa.superhacker.robin.hood.hq.ri aa.org just entered
#mpthreeWaReZLEET HotBalls: u got any mixed
britney spears tracks? Bsblvr: i want the new Justin Timerlake solo from the
BSB new album! R7I7AAHaxor: trading MP3's is illegal, u know. Bsblvr:
yeah so what???? BigDisks (3,400 GB of MP3) began sharing.
HotBalls: bigdisk, I missed u! I bet u have the new britney spears
mix, huh? BigDisks: Yes, I do. It's on my third Maxtor 100 gig.
R7I7AAHaxor: Bigdisk, you shall die! BigDisks: Who is Haxor?
HotBalls: Just one of the lame RIAA goons. R7I7AAHaxor: I am NOT LAME! I
can DoS all of u! I will destroy u cable modems! Bsblvr: ur gay
R7I7AAHaxor: I AM NOT GAY. I HAPPEN TO WORK FOR THE RIAA AND MP3 TRADING IS
ILLEGAL! I HAVE U IP ADDRESS! BigDisks starts file transfer
to HotBalls. R7I7AAHaxor: I HAVE STARTED DOS ON BIGDISK. I WROTE THE
SHELL SCRIPT MYSELF; I AM LEET. BigDisks exited (ping
timeout) HotBalls: u jerk, u cut my dload off at 53%!
R7I7AAHaxor: I AM MIGHTY RIAA HAXOR I WILL PREVENT ALL MP3! I AM ONLY 14 BUT
I CAN KICK YOU, I AM LEET. Bsblvr: u suck R7I7AAHaxor: I WILL BE BACK. I
HAVE TO STUDY FOR A BIOLOGY TEST TOMORROW, BUT I WILL BE BACK TO STOP ALL OF U
FROM TRADING UR MP3s'! R7I7AAHaxor
exited. BigDisks entered. BigDisks: Who was that?
Bsblvr: One of the RIAA's employees. He's gone now, he has a biology test
tomorrow and has to study for it.
Winamp, I think, uses DirectShow filters to play WMA files. Thus, they are using the Microsoft WMA decoder driver. This means it's the driver, or "filter" which opens up a browser window, NOT Winamp or even the OS.
If you read the WMA spec it's quite easily to make a file copyrighted and when played without a license, direct it to a specific url. You can even disable sound recording (by opening the recording pin on all line devices), or run a section of the WMA file as a program. I'm kind of shocked there already isn't a virus out there that infects users by playing a WMA music file.
How does his system account for the different shapes of different peoples' hands? Do you have to calibrate it for your own fingers, or can anyone use it? For example, what if a woman, with more slender fingers used the phone? How would it be able to tell the difference between a fat index finger and a regular thumb?
It doesn't seem too promising to me, mainly because there simply isn't any algorithm which can account for the widly varying differences in human geometry, especially the hands.
I'd like to see it work before I would incorporate in my phone, and just not work for me. Take ten people with odd shaped fingers and see if it works.
Carly speaks of reason for merger
on
HP Buys Compaq
·
· Score: 2
I was researching Carly Fiorina and came across an InformationWeek.com interview with the 'boss', dated Friday, July 20th, 2001. It seems to provide some insight into why HP is buying Compaq. Here is the quote from the article:
Carly:
You made the comment that Compaq is becoming a services company. Look, all Compaq has done so far is follow our strategy by nine months to the letter. Including on [June 25], saying, "You know that IA-64 idea that HP has been on for seven years and co-developed the chip? We think maybe that's a good idea, we're going there."
So, what I see Compaq doing actually is following us and I do not think they have the systems-class capability that we do, nor do they have the experience around rich content, which our planning and imaging business gives us. And more and more of the applications are moving to rich-content kinds of applications.
Well, she's obviously a very intelligent woman coming from the rest of the article(and her COUPLE of BS and MS's), and this seems to explain a few things about her reasoning. So what Compaq is lacking HP will be filling in, to create this giant service-over-network beast which will be the Next Big Thing for the Internet.
As usual, those on slashdot have begun to open their privacy tantrum-mouths again before researching.
ENUMs will be aliases for other services (like e-mail, telephone services, etc.). Each service will require a type of authentication before it can get into the wrong hands. It's just basically a convience measure. Instead of giving all your info to the phone company to get service, you just give them your ENUM, they get your info with a public key issued for phone company service providers. So they have access only to that info which is required under those specific aliases.
If you think of an ENUM as a kind of relational ID in a database for all services, accounts, etc. you have, and only specific people having keys to access that information referenced to by your ENUM, you'll get the idea. So when you give an average citizen your ENUM, you can choose to enable them to have your phone number, etc. if you want. Or you can give them a NULL ENUM, which basically would serve as a number to track you in case you, say, pass a bad check (and would offer no information initially).
What should happen, is if the jurors find Sklyarov not guilty due to the DMCA being unjust, we should seek punishment of the senators who passed this law. They should be made accountable for it. After all -- they said it was legal and worth passing in the first place.
Since when is it news that you can get property records online?
For my state (Ohio), and county (Franklin), I can get full property record information, including sale price, all inspection history, even the layout by knowing just the address. This service has been available for years now and is available for countless other counties in Ohio and the same in many other states.
The only thing you can't do right now is get someones criminal record (although it is available for anyone about anyone for a fee). In addition, there are many states which have been putting court transcripts online for awhile now. So this isn't news -- it's just the privacy people drumming up more emotion.
For the most part I don't think people should worry the slightest. Actual stalkers who want someone's information and are determined to actually do *something* don't care about convience. They'll go dig through a file cabnet for their x-wife's name and address just as they would look it up online. It saves them some work, but that wasn't their goal in the first place.
In addition, most important people and celebrities have known addresses. They show their homes off on TV and magazines. So I doubt they care about that.
That article presents a pretty pathetic argument. These are public records, and there are all kinds of positive uses. Public records will always be abused, and putting them on the Internet isn't going to stop nor increase that abuse (due to the nature and type of people who do such abuse).
I DID read the fscking article. The article never mentions an equipment failure related to negligence, it mentions they got hit heavily by Code Red. This isn't a service level default of the contract or about the network not meating performance specifications and thus not being able to handle Code Red. It happened to other networks as well.
Which is why I assume you posted as Anonymous Coward?
That's stupid to give refunds. It's not a network comapnies job to insure stupid users don't attack each other and bring down the network in the process. This is about liability -- you are ultimatly responsible for what your computer does. What do these people want a refund from? Their own foolishness?
In some cases, there may be those whom had never actually had the bug, and had experienced a network outage because of the "other people.". This happens. Quest cannot control the weather from destorying a router station just as much as it can't control a virus. Downtimes are a fact of life, a network is dynamic. Shit happens.
Avoid blaming at all, but at least when you need to, put blame where blame is deserved -- the Code Red virus. Don't sue the messenger.
Please enter your social security number, date of birth, tax identification number, and driver's license number. Please scan your finger print and prick your finger on the way out.
Welcome, John Doe. GovOS has detected multiple documents which violate a newly established copyright protection law, called the DMCA. You have also visited several web sites which violate these laws. GovOS has added these offences to your criminal information file and has issued warrants for your arrest. Please wait while the police arrive at your location...
Thank you for using GovOS, citizen!
Gives a new meaning to illegal operation, doesn't it? Don't mix laws with operating systems, OK? Some things just don't have to be that efficient.
This is an article which really makes me appriciate what we have today. If someone today told me I had to perform computations on a slide-rule while fending from enemy attack, I would think they're joking. But this is what they actually went through.
My favorite line of the entire article (in reference to the fabrication of slide rules used in the missions):
But, to avoid paperwork and delivery delays, I chose to have them made at the Harmon Field sheet-metal shop on Guam. At that time, there wasn't much combat damage to B-29s. So the repair crews readily gave up some of their beach time for a few bottles of Old Granddad.
Lets see. A standard 56k dial-up connection gets about 5.25 KB/s with a *good* server and ISP. The movie is 500 MB. That's about 1,625 minutes, or around 27 hours to download, +/- a few hours.
On a 750 Kb/s cable or DSL line it would take between 1-170 minutes to download, streaming if the movie is at least that long.
Anyhow, for most people they're saying that after you wait over a day to download it, that you won't be able to play it possibily and if you do it will be but once?
Slashdot Mirror
I saw your pictures and I must say that's a real bang up job. However, you should note that it's rather foolish to ship a tower in the size box you shipped it in.
If you absolutly need to ship PC parts, disassemble them and ship them in containers with lots of foam, packing "popcorn", etc. Even empty ATX cases arrive in boxes two and three times their actual size.
I'm not defending UPS nor am I saying they are at fault. The processes involved in sorting boxes often include large belts and ramps, and yes, two and three feet drops. The belts that load boxes onto FedEx planes often have five foot drops at the top. And this is FedEx.
This is why you need insurance, and you need to be wise about packaging your goods. I sure hope you didn't pack all the things pictured in a 4 cu foot box you showed that was beat to death (probably from stuff rolling around inside of it).
I would go the route of getting moeny from UPS if you insured it. Other than that you're screwed.
Hey, whatever pushes your TCP/IP stack is good...
"11 Mbps should be enough for anyone, forget 802.11a." -- Slashdot posts, 2001.
People are getting it all wrong. I2 isn't the "next" or "new" Internet and it wasn't created for brand new applications or new "mindsets" for doing things because it's so blistering fast. It was created because schools can't afford commercial pipes. It's less expensive to connect schools together directly than connect them to a national, commercial provider at these high speeds.
I2 is primarily fast because it isn't used all that much. You don't have thousands of AOL dialups clogging up the network, @Home/Time Warner boxen downloading pirated movies, or the psychic friends network using it to do their VoIP. That all eats bandwidth. Instead, you have the occasional geek downloading a slackware distribution, or browsing the Computer Science department of another university. If suddenly all the schools would allow traffic over their commercial pipes to access their I2 routers, I'm sure the network would slow down now seeing it's accessible to the public - along with all the abuses and bandwidth eating applications.
I guess the best analogy to this would be comparing it to an underground tunnel between schools only for academic use, compared to a giant highway for public use. The underground tunnel doesn't nearly have the capacity of the massive highway, but is much faster. So just because something is fast doesn't mean its on the edge of technology or is, in fact, anything special.
I have used I2 and it is quite fast, but what can you get on it? The latest well hyperlinked personal page of a student in a nearby school? This makes it loose much of the reason why the real Internet is so popular -- it's a space where you can find anything. But I2 defeats this purpose by limiting what the network can connect to, and thus its usefulness. It may be useful at testing new applications, like an HDTV stream, but since you're not doing this on a public network to begin with it's applications are limited to your own, highly restrictive network. You can't say you've done something new when all you've done is create an exclusive network that doesn't address the real problems of networks anyway - like last mile access and exponentional bandwidth increases. IMO, I2 is a way for schools to have a fast link to each other without paying the huge costs associated with a 1 GB link to the national backbone. That's all it is, and that's all it probably will be.
I worked for the Columbus Dispatch in Columbus, Ohio as an intern in the photography department.
This article, while brining up a few interesting points about digital and how it may or could change things, what I actually saw and was a part of painted a different picture, but this may be only unique to this one newspaper.
The photographers were all armed with Canon EOS digitals, I had my own Olympus E-10 and some had the new Nikon D1X, which is quite possibly the greatest digital camera to ever exist.
Anyway, most had 256 MB CF cards or in the case of the Canon digitals, several GB PCMCIA drives which could hold thousands of full quality, often times RAW (uncompressed) pictures. Those with CF cards could hold about 40 raw pictures per CF, or around 200 1/2.8 JPEGs (still very high quality). The best part of all is we could share the cards, so if one didn't need 50 MB on their card and someone else did, we could use their card. Try doing that with a half exposed roll of film.
Most of us shot in high quality JPEG, because you couldn't tell the difference between that and raw if you didn't magnify the image 5x. This saved space, which is still valuable, and affored us the quality we needed for front page spreads.
When we would finish a shoot, we would save all the digital images on CD. The film guys, on the other hand, would throw away the negatives that didn't make the cut. There was simply no place to put them and the care and cost of chemicals required to maintain them was too expensive. However, all our images were backed up on CDs and filed in a safe. Pure, digital copies of our work. In other cases we would have a laptop on site and would simply slide our CF in with a PCMCIA adapter and in 5 minutes have 200 more shots ready.
I think the situation this woman speaks of is that like the early days of digital, when you were limited to $250 32 MB cards. However, today a 320 MB CompactFlash card can be had for under $100, and a 1 GB micro-drive is around $400. I rarely think a photographer brings enough film for 3500+ pictures on one shoot, which one could fit on a microdrive with a small laptop (over 100 roles of film). Plus, the 2 GB and 5 GB microdrive versions are just on the horizon, offering even more on field capacity.
In fact, if anything, the cheapness of digital makes photographers take more pictures. Lets not forget the time factor. There is NO developing, no scanning, etc. You can take a laptop and even transfer the images back by modem if needed, or plug into the nearest network. And today, when all layout is done on computers, this just makes sense.
I think this woman tried digital when it was in its infancy and backed away from it and now has a film only attitude. Well, she should really try the Nikon D1X SLR and a 1 GB microdrive. I think she'll be leaving film for good when she gets some of the images from that camera (which technically has greater resolution and dynamic range than a 35 MM negative).
Even my Olympus E-10, a prosumer model, rivals film to the point where the images from the camera are sharper than any scans I can get from a 35 MM negative.
Also, there was something mentioned about the durability of film vs. digital. Well, may I remind you that film cannot be kept in hot temperatures. This is why people refrigerate their film (before and after exposure). Digital has no problems in hot weather, albeit the CCD does produce more noise when the temperature rises, it doesn't completly fade away the picture like film would. In the cold, dew forms on film negatives and moisture damage is a huge problem. With digital this isn't a problem at all, and most CCDs perform better in the cold.
The best part about digital is that its a growing field. It follows Moore's law, and in five years we could be looking at over 20 mega-pixels of resolution at all types of ISOs (film has only one ISO while the D1X can go from 100-800 by pressing a button), greater than medium format and rivaling large format. This is greater resolution than 35 MM will ever be able to provide.
All through that women's article I find it odd no one has mentioned she is attacking digital archival. She seems to think digital will reduce the nation's photographic libraries, when other mediums, such as print, etc. have been the poster child for digital archival and everyone is so glad the old days of microfilm and paper are over. In fact, digital archival for photographs is easily suited for the task. It's much easier to query a database for "September 11th 2nd Plane" than look through an entire seleve of negatives, or go through a convoluted filing system. When I worked, all digital images would have to have a title, a description, where it was taken, and the identity of anyone pictured (if not a crowd shot). This is what we would do after we get back. The embedded EXIF data in the image, as recorded by the camera, took care of the date, ISO, shutter speed, and other technical information (again, not present with film). This would then go onto an online storage and retreival system, and backed up on CD.
Now as for being an on-site editor, as someone mentioned, and having different goals, this just simply isn't true. An editor and a photographer both have the same goal: getting a good picture. When the photographer arrives back, often times there simply are no *really* good pictures to choose from (you know the feeling of "This one's good enough, go with it."). However, with digital's instant preview of a captured image, a photographer can instantly gauge his efforts and dynamically adjust his shooting style based upon his output. He can progressivly work to attain a greater image by building upon the one he just took, which is impossible with film. This is what we did at an event, and since we were editing on site, we had the benefit to go and take more pictures. Back in the film room with a magnifying glass you are only limited to the selection of what was took -- in many cases that one picture you "had in mind" was lost forever. However at the scene we have the benefit of doing a reshoot without even having to step foot in a darkroom.
My only current complaint with digital is the time factor. Film is still faster at taking images, while digital sometimes makes you wait while saving and compressing images. This is a temporary problem which will soon be corrected as embedded processors get faster and portable storage write speeds increase. Still, this is one area where film wins. Still though, the two and three second waits of today's professional models are getting very close to what film is capable of and burst mode on many cameras gives good results, especially when you're in the middle of a press mob and you only have a few seconds to snap that picture of your subject -- every frame per second counts.
Now, it seems, film is nearing death and the last survivors are clinging onto it like one would with a sick family member. Digital is here to stay, is growing, and no matter what arguments that woman seems to claim, it's the new way for all types of photography. I sent her an e-mail with a link to the D1X and a copy of this post. I think she's just about to change her mind...
Hmm...my favorite was the sinusoidal IP address spoofing. Anyone else?
A locked down system is as useful as a tool as a hammer is if it were barred from making marks in it's head.
Clearly, the process of developing suggests an errorenous progression; changes are made gradually. With the inability to make changes, one loses the ability to develop.
Most companies have a locked down test system, which serves as a scientific control, but having a locked down system for which to work and develop would yeild an environment where very litte work could get done. You need to be able to change a system to make something, its as simple as that. Imagine being requested to build a new house, or better the foundation of said house if the ground couldn't be touched.
Since when does the Internet considered a particle wave system? 'Holographic packets' sounds more like an invention of Steve Gibson than a method with sound scientific and technical backing...
Production environment? No wonder why you posted as a coward...
Use VNC (free; open source; multi-platform). If you have the multiple machines networked on a resonable network (10 Mbps is fine, 100 Mbps is completly lag free -- even works OK through cable modems). Then all you need to know is the IP address of the machine, and you get an instant view of the desktop and you are able to move the mouse around, use the keyboard, etc. It's kind of like PC Anywhere, without the bloat and it's cross-platform and performs very well. If you have a DNS server, you can even assign computers a name.
No switches or cable to deal with, and best of all you can use multiple machines at the same time (e.g. at a resolution of 1600x1200 with 800x600 VNC windows), and also use your main computer. With KVM switches, you physically switch everything over, which when done many times risks damage. Not to mention all those cables going to all the different machines to do the switching.
KVM is a thing of the past, right next to the 300 baud modem rack hosting the ASCII art BBS, when you needed to view the screens of several 386's. It also doesn't make sense, to say, use a KVM switch for 10 computers. However, with VNC you have the limits (on a private network anyway) of the entire IP dotted-decimal.
The activity light is still on rock solid, and there's nothing wrong with the modem. No, I don't have any of the worms because I'm using a broadband firewall.
At my last count, I receive around 500 attempts by these worms each day, usually by other cable users. Before I got a firewall, loading up my Apache log file crashed notepad. My favorite past time has become tracerouting the IPs to see what nearby city they're in. I live in Columbus, Ohio and can easily discern those from nearby towns and locations throughout the city (e.g. pos1-2-colswest or pos4-0-dublin).
I then like to load up Telnet and go searching for root.exe on these computers. When dumped into a root cmd, a carefully placed command copies a file from a share on my computer to the other machine. The file, of course, is an MS update patch or lately one of the clean utilities posted around the net. Another command runs the program and when finished the system is reboot and no longer bothers me.
Now there's an idea...fixing worm systems through their own security holes. I even wrote a little script to automatically attempt to 'fix' an attacking system. Don't just bitch when the same IP keeps pounding you...do something about it!! There's plenty of info out there, and you can get most of the info from the attacking HTTP GET strings.
Seriously, this isn't a product plug and I know Capital One isn't the best credit card company to ever exist, but I have been defrauded a few times on eBay, and each time I have used my Capital One credit card through PayPal. Capital One has an online protection program and all you have to do is call them up and explain the situation. They sometimes ask you to fax or e-mail documents and then they stop the charge by doing a charge-back.
The process is completly transparent, and Capital One fraud investigators then automatically take over if, neccessary. They know you don't HAVE to pay the bill, and most people won't if they have been the victim of a fraud.
The key is to do it quick, e.g. if you suspect you are dealing with a fraud, (e.g. "I just shipped it."), stop the charge. The worse that could happen is there will be a delay. Another option would be to stop the posting of the charge, but keep the charge. In this way, the seller is still guaranteed the funds because they are set aside for them, but they don't actually have them in their hands.
This has worked good, and is why you should NEVER transfer money from your checking or bank account, because it's much EASIER to get credit back than your *real* money. PayPal says a bank transfer is the prefered method, and with good reason because they don't end up eating the cost when one their accounts commits fraud. You do.
R7I7AAHaxor from DHCP-stp.loc-5-1.riaa.superhacker.robin.hood.hq.ri aa.org just entered
#mpthreeWaReZLEET
HotBalls: u got any mixed britney spears tracks?
Bsblvr: i want the new Justin Timerlake solo from the BSB new album!
R7I7AAHaxor: trading MP3's is illegal, u know.
Bsblvr: yeah so what????
BigDisks (3,400 GB of MP3) began sharing.
HotBalls: bigdisk, I missed u! I bet u have the new britney spears mix, huh?
BigDisks: Yes, I do. It's on my third Maxtor 100 gig.
R7I7AAHaxor: Bigdisk, you shall die!
BigDisks: Who is Haxor?
HotBalls: Just one of the lame RIAA goons.
R7I7AAHaxor: I am NOT LAME! I can DoS all of u! I will destroy u cable modems!
Bsblvr: ur gay
R7I7AAHaxor: I AM NOT GAY. I HAPPEN TO WORK FOR THE RIAA AND MP3 TRADING IS ILLEGAL! I HAVE U IP ADDRESS!
BigDisks starts file transfer to HotBalls.
R7I7AAHaxor: I HAVE STARTED DOS ON BIGDISK. I WROTE THE SHELL SCRIPT MYSELF; I AM LEET.
BigDisks exited (ping timeout)
HotBalls: u jerk, u cut my dload off at 53%!
R7I7AAHaxor: I AM MIGHTY RIAA HAXOR I WILL PREVENT ALL MP3! I AM ONLY 14 BUT I CAN KICK YOU, I AM LEET.
Bsblvr: u suck
R7I7AAHaxor: I WILL BE BACK. I HAVE TO STUDY FOR A BIOLOGY TEST TOMORROW, BUT I WILL BE BACK TO STOP ALL OF U FROM TRADING UR MP3s'!
R7I7AAHaxor exited.
BigDisks entered.
BigDisks: Who was that?
Bsblvr: One of the RIAA's employees. He's gone now, he has a biology test tomorrow and has to study for it.
Winamp, I think, uses DirectShow filters to play WMA files. Thus, they are using the Microsoft WMA decoder driver. This means it's the driver, or "filter" which opens up a browser window, NOT Winamp or even the OS.
If you read the WMA spec it's quite easily to make a file copyrighted and when played without a license, direct it to a specific url. You can even disable sound recording (by opening the recording pin on all line devices), or run a section of the WMA file as a program. I'm kind of shocked there already isn't a virus out there that infects users by playing a WMA music file.
Pretty nifty, Microsoft!
How does his system account for the different shapes of different peoples' hands? Do you have to calibrate it for your own fingers, or can anyone use it? For example, what if a woman, with more slender fingers used the phone? How would it be able to tell the difference between a fat index finger and a regular thumb?
It doesn't seem too promising to me, mainly because there simply isn't any algorithm which can account for the widly varying differences in human geometry, especially the hands.
I'd like to see it work before I would incorporate in my phone, and just not work for me. Take ten people with odd shaped fingers and see if it works.
I was researching Carly Fiorina and came across an InformationWeek.com interview with the 'boss', dated Friday, July 20th, 2001. It seems to provide some insight into why HP is buying Compaq. Here is the quote from the article:
Carly:
You made the comment that Compaq is becoming a services company. Look, all Compaq has done so far is follow our strategy by nine months to the letter. Including on [June 25], saying, "You know that IA-64 idea that HP has been on for seven years and co-developed the chip? We think maybe that's a good idea, we're going there."
So, what I see Compaq doing actually is following us and I do not think they have the systems-class capability that we do, nor do they have the experience around rich content, which our planning and imaging business gives us. And more and more of the applications are moving to rich-content kinds of applications.
Well, she's obviously a very intelligent woman coming from the rest of the article(and her COUPLE of BS and MS's), and this seems to explain a few things about her reasoning. So what Compaq is lacking HP will be filling in, to create this giant service-over-network beast which will be the Next Big Thing for the Internet.
As usual, those on slashdot have begun to open their privacy tantrum-mouths again before researching.
ENUMs will be aliases for other services (like e-mail, telephone services, etc.). Each service will require a type of authentication before it can get into the wrong hands. It's just basically a convience measure. Instead of giving all your info to the phone company to get service, you just give them your ENUM, they get your info with a public key issued for phone company service providers. So they have access only to that info which is required under those specific aliases.
If you think of an ENUM as a kind of relational ID in a database for all services, accounts, etc. you have, and only specific people having keys to access that information referenced to by your ENUM, you'll get the idea. So when you give an average citizen your ENUM, you can choose to enable them to have your phone number, etc. if you want. Or you can give them a NULL ENUM, which basically would serve as a number to track you in case you, say, pass a bad check (and would offer no information initially).
What should happen, is if the jurors find Sklyarov not guilty due to the DMCA being unjust, we should seek punishment of the senators who passed this law. They should be made accountable for it. After all -- they said it was legal and worth passing in the first place.
A closed source version of an open source community? Quite the oxymoron.
Since when is it news that you can get property records online?
For my state (Ohio), and county (Franklin), I can get full property record information, including sale price, all inspection history, even the layout by knowing just the address. This service has been available for years now and is available for countless other counties in Ohio and the same in many other states.
The only thing you can't do right now is get someones criminal record (although it is available for anyone about anyone for a fee). In addition, there are many states which have been putting court transcripts online for awhile now. So this isn't news -- it's just the privacy people drumming up more emotion.
For the most part I don't think people should worry the slightest. Actual stalkers who want someone's information and are determined to actually do *something* don't care about convience. They'll go dig through a file cabnet for their x-wife's name and address just as they would look it up online. It saves them some work, but that wasn't their goal in the first place.
In addition, most important people and celebrities have known addresses. They show their homes off on TV and magazines. So I doubt they care about that.
That article presents a pretty pathetic argument. These are public records, and there are all kinds of positive uses. Public records will always be abused, and putting them on the Internet isn't going to stop nor increase that abuse (due to the nature and type of people who do such abuse).
I DID read the fscking article. The article never mentions an equipment failure related to negligence, it mentions they got hit heavily by Code Red. This isn't a service level default of the contract or about the network not meating performance specifications and thus not being able to handle Code Red. It happened to other networks as well.
Which is why I assume you posted as Anonymous Coward?
That's stupid to give refunds. It's not a network comapnies job to insure stupid users don't attack each other and bring down the network in the process. This is about liability -- you are ultimatly responsible for what your computer does. What do these people want a refund from? Their own foolishness?
In some cases, there may be those whom had never actually had the bug, and had experienced a network outage because of the "other people.". This happens. Quest cannot control the weather from destorying a router station just as much as it can't control a virus. Downtimes are a fact of life, a network is dynamic. Shit happens.
Avoid blaming at all, but at least when you need to, put blame where blame is deserved -- the Code Red virus. Don't sue the messenger.
Welcome to GovOS.
Please enter your social security number, date of birth, tax identification number, and driver's license number. Please scan your finger print and prick your finger on the way out.
Welcome, John Doe. GovOS has detected multiple documents which violate a newly established copyright protection law, called the DMCA. You have also visited several web sites which violate these laws. GovOS has added these offences to your criminal information file and has issued warrants for your arrest. Please wait while the police arrive at your location...
Thank you for using GovOS, citizen!
Gives a new meaning to illegal operation, doesn't it? Don't mix laws with operating systems, OK? Some things just don't have to be that efficient.
This is an article which really makes me appriciate what we have today. If someone today told me I had to perform computations on a slide-rule while fending from enemy attack, I would think they're joking. But this is what they actually went through.
My favorite line of the entire article (in reference to the fabrication of slide rules used in the missions):
But, to avoid paperwork and delivery delays, I chose to have them made at the Harmon Field sheet-metal shop on Guam. At that time, there wasn't much combat damage to B-29s. So the repair crews readily gave up some of their beach time for a few bottles of Old Granddad.
Yep, things we're certainly different back then!
Hmm...
Lets see. A standard 56k dial-up connection gets about 5.25 KB/s with a *good* server and ISP. The movie is 500 MB. That's about 1,625 minutes, or around 27 hours to download, +/- a few hours.
On a 750 Kb/s cable or DSL line it would take between 1-170 minutes to download, streaming if the movie is at least that long.
Anyhow, for most people they're saying that after you wait over a day to download it, that you won't be able to play it possibily and if you do it will be but once?