Yes, Sandra is being ported to Linux (RedHat/Mandrake). The hardest part is to port the interface (from MFC), the rest are just normal C++ classes, hopefully it should go quicker... It's just a question of time.
This is the Linux-related sentence - not very descriptive. From personal experience I can say that the UI is nearly always the most time-consuming part, whether for a port or a complete re-write (assuming it's not a kludge job). I mean, it's just a matter of time before Linux takes over the world, right? Soon, I hope??
True, except that these methods are probably not intended for watermarking, but rather merely to hide data.
Actually, according to the article, that is one of its major intended purposes. While this particular type of stego could be used for many other purposes, it's primary focus is on watermarking geological survey data so that people who use it illegally can be caught.
Unfortunately, I don't see that there is much hope for this actually succeeding as a real tool to watermark data. It is too easy to simply spline all of the data and recalculate the points, obliterating the watermark. Further, a lot of software simply does that automatically to smooth out the data. As soon as it is saved again, the stego is gone.
Re:why give katz such a hard time...
on
Dog Bites Website
·
· Score: 1
Despite all of the reasons people give for hating Katz, the real reason still stands out clearly - it's because that's what everyone else does. It seems to be the "in thing" here at/. to hate Jon Katz, and here at Slashdot, we're not really any different from the rest of the world -- a bunch of followers. The article may be fluffy, and self-serving for Katz, but he writes a column here, for god's sake! He expresses his opinion to stimulate discussion -- quit complaining about Katz because he's Katz!
The question IS NOT if any one of us would vote for the opposing candidate. While it may seem only slightly different, the point is that we are not encouraging any single candidate, but rather obliterating another. There will always be some issues on which you disagree with both of them. So we are running issue-ads about one specific thing. The point is to MAKE AN EXAMPLE out of someone, so that the rest will think twice. So we're not even talking about voting for a candidate - that's just the byproduct of the smear.
Of course they can fight back. Of course they will fight back. But the example of the NRA is a good one - if there is enough money to make them fight on a level playing field, we stand a much better shot of winning. They can call names, but as long as we can keep running the ads, it won't matter - they aren't fighting a PAC, they're fighting another candidate. They'll probably save most of the name-calling for their "real" opponent.
Slashdot doesn't lose any revenues from subscribers since they don't sell 100% of their impressions anyway.
How do you figure that they don't lose revenue? - even if they only sell some percentage, the total number of hits they are calculating that percentage off goes down if subscribers aren't seeing the ads - it still comes up to less ad-views. What am I missing?
The problem is that the advertisers aren't paying on a time-based sheme - they pay per view. So to make up for the lost viewing revenues that Slashdot would get if you viewed the ads,/. has to charge you in the same way they charge the advertisers.
This is where the difference between free as in speech and free as in beer comes into play. When you pay for a piece of software, I think that you have the right to expect it to behave as advertised - fuck any "no warranty" clause to the contrary. If you obtained if for free as in beer, then there is literally no warranty - some folks published this because they thought it would be useful, and that's it. If there's an opensource piece of software that's free as in speech, but not as in beer, then we have the right to expect it to not fuck up our machines, and should be able to hold the company that sold it to us liable.
Fortunately, the GPL licenses state that this is distributed under no warranty of any kind, which might provide some legal relief. If this was legislated around it could be a MAJOR blow to the free software community - if you can be held liable for your code fucking someone's computer up, that's a BIG incentive for little freelance coders to give up - Microsoft can pay the legal fees and out-of-court settlements - I cannot.
I use Readerware, and while I grant to you that it is "inefficient" in some sense (and yes, the interface sucks), the folks working on it are continuously updating the thing, and its ability to search about 2 dozen different sources for book information is really wonderful.
Since most people don't play books by putting them in a slot in their computer, there isn't really that much demand for a really high-power archiver. I personally just scan my new books in and click "update" - Readerware finds everything I need, no problem, and I don't have to do it that often.
Chris
"and the people"? Please - most of the population doesn't give a shit, or has no idea what's happening. "The people" aren't for or opposed to any legislation.
Yeah, I figured it would take an enormous amount of power, but given the increasing research costs into other methods (spraying water into the jet stream, using weird exit nozzles, etc.) it might be worth it anyway. While some of the noise reduction techniques actually increase the thrust of the engine, most of them cut into it pretty severely. And they're really, really expensive.
I wonder if it would be possible to use this on a larger scale - say, on an airport runway. We have a lot of problems reducing the dB level coming out af a jet engine, and most research is focused on the engine design itself. Is it possible that we could at least reduce the amount of noise at ground level with something like this. I know the article says regular, predictable noise, but that in the future it could be expanded. How much power would this take, I wonder?? It would have tremendous implications for airport development, since one of the major impediments right now is neighbors' complaints about takeoffs.
...and I think that not only do it because this kind of advertising is reprehensible, but because it is also what their users want. This might provide a nice niche for Mozilla or Konqueror to slide into - perhaps as a full-featured browser that doesn't allow the annoying ads it could gain some market share.
This only delays it a year, which is a notoriously short amount of time. We can't say to ourselves "Good - now I can go back to bed." This give all of us another year to deluge our representatives with letters expressing the danger of this legislation. We can't keep relying on people like senator Leahy to save our asses for us. WRITE!!
Re:Steve O'Shea's Discovery Channel Special RULES!
on
Giant Octopus
·
· Score: 1
They died on the way back to shore, which I gather was just a few hours.
Professionally, cables are typically taped down with gaff tape - it's a cloth tape with a matte finish (usually) that sticks to stuff, but peels off cleanly when you need it to. It tears easily too. You can probably get it at theatre supply stores.
The chief scientist at NASA Langley, Dennis M. Bushnell, gave a talk at my university a few weeks ago. He discussed several dozen *very* out-there ideas (personal auto-piloted helicopters for the masses within ten years, for example), but when asked about the viablility of the space elevator concept he dismissed it outright as a pipe dream.
From the article...
The decision, though, has little practical effect.
That is because the same appeals court in July blocked the lower court's ruling from being enforced, but Napster never resumed its free service. Instead, it has focused on creating a paid online music service.
So, in the end, we're still crying about a case that was dead long ago. When the RIAA decided to go after Napster, that was the end of it. Everyone here knows that this is a shitty deal, but every little Napster story still gets coverage. The case is closed.
They talk about this showing up in the marine fossil record, but what about on land? The article mentions some geological data, but is there any on-land paleontological evidence to support this? Also, they only talk about it killing plankton - does that mean that it was too far away to kill anything larger directly? Perhaps this is why we haven't run across it in any other fossil records...
I'm sorry to see the politicians again using force to impose one view of "morality" on everyone. Too bad. Maybe if they impose enough one size fits all regulations, it will finally wake everyone up to the evil of a strong central government.
Careful how far you take this argument - most laws are based upon some form of "morality" or another. This does not mean that all laws are intrinsically bad - it just reveals one of the limitations of political systems/justice systems in general. De-centralizing government will not cure all of our problems.
Not only is he missing the embedded market, he is missing the scientific computing market - even C/C++ isn't used that often to do things like computational fluid dynamics, etc. In fields that rely on heavy number-crunching, Fortran is still the language of choice (whether by tradition or actual performance benefits is still unclear!). And believe me, there are still many, many people coding away in these fields.
In computational fluid dynamics, where simulations run days or weeks, non-stop, maxing out the CPU the whole time, 5% faster is a lot. The price tag is actually relatively small when compared to the time savings that you can achieve. They certainly don't make sense for the average consumer, but for some simulations, they're worth every cent.
Slashdot Mirror
This is the Linux-related sentence - not very descriptive. From personal experience I can say that the UI is nearly always the most time-consuming part, whether for a port or a complete re-write (assuming it's not a kludge job). I mean, it's just a matter of time before Linux takes over the world, right? Soon, I hope??
Actually, according to the article, that is one of its major intended purposes. While this particular type of stego could be used for many other purposes, it's primary focus is on watermarking geological survey data so that people who use it illegally can be caught.
Unfortunately, I don't see that there is much hope for this actually succeeding as a real tool to watermark data. It is too easy to simply spline all of the data and recalculate the points, obliterating the watermark. Further, a lot of software simply does that automatically to smooth out the data. As soon as it is saved again, the stego is gone.
Despite all of the reasons people give for hating Katz, the real reason still stands out clearly - it's because that's what everyone else does. It seems to be the "in thing" here at /. to hate Jon Katz, and here at Slashdot, we're not really any different from the rest of the world -- a bunch of followers. The article may be fluffy, and self-serving for Katz, but he writes a column here, for god's sake! He expresses his opinion to stimulate discussion -- quit complaining about Katz because he's Katz!
The question IS NOT if any one of us would vote for the opposing candidate. While it may seem only slightly different, the point is that we are not encouraging any single candidate, but rather obliterating another. There will always be some issues on which you disagree with both of them. So we are running issue-ads about one specific thing. The point is to MAKE AN EXAMPLE out of someone, so that the rest will think twice. So we're not even talking about voting for a candidate - that's just the byproduct of the smear.
Of course they can fight back. Of course they will fight back. But the example of the NRA is a good one - if there is enough money to make them fight on a level playing field, we stand a much better shot of winning. They can call names, but as long as we can keep running the ads, it won't matter - they aren't fighting a PAC, they're fighting another candidate. They'll probably save most of the name-calling for their "real" opponent.
How do you figure that they don't lose revenue? - even if they only sell some percentage, the total number of hits they are calculating that percentage off goes down if subscribers aren't seeing the ads - it still comes up to less ad-views. What am I missing?
The problem is that the advertisers aren't paying on a time-based sheme - they pay per view. So to make up for the lost viewing revenues that Slashdot would get if you viewed the ads, /. has to charge you in the same way they charge the advertisers.
This is where the difference between free as in speech and free as in beer comes into play. When you pay for a piece of software, I think that you have the right to expect it to behave as advertised - fuck any "no warranty" clause to the contrary. If you obtained if for free as in beer, then there is literally no warranty - some folks published this because they thought it would be useful, and that's it. If there's an opensource piece of software that's free as in speech, but not as in beer, then we have the right to expect it to not fuck up our machines, and should be able to hold the company that sold it to us liable.
Fortunately, the GPL licenses state that this is distributed under no warranty of any kind, which might provide some legal relief. If this was legislated around it could be a MAJOR blow to the free software community - if you can be held liable for your code fucking someone's computer up, that's a BIG incentive for little freelance coders to give up - Microsoft can pay the legal fees and out-of-court settlements - I cannot.
Chris
I use Readerware, and while I grant to you that it is "inefficient" in some sense (and yes, the interface sucks), the folks working on it are continuously updating the thing, and its ability to search about 2 dozen different sources for book information is really wonderful. Since most people don't play books by putting them in a slot in their computer, there isn't really that much demand for a really high-power archiver. I personally just scan my new books in and click "update" - Readerware finds everything I need, no problem, and I don't have to do it that often. Chris
"and the people"? Please - most of the population doesn't give a shit, or has no idea what's happening. "The people" aren't for or opposed to any legislation.
Chris
Yeah, I figured it would take an enormous amount of power, but given the increasing research costs into other methods (spraying water into the jet stream, using weird exit nozzles, etc.) it might be worth it anyway. While some of the noise reduction techniques actually increase the thrust of the engine, most of them cut into it pretty severely. And they're really, really expensive.
I wonder if it would be possible to use this on a larger scale - say, on an airport runway. We have a lot of problems reducing the dB level coming out af a jet engine, and most research is focused on the engine design itself. Is it possible that we could at least reduce the amount of noise at ground level with something like this. I know the article says regular, predictable noise, but that in the future it could be expanded. How much power would this take, I wonder?? It would have tremendous implications for airport development, since one of the major impediments right now is neighbors' complaints about takeoffs.
...and I think that not only do it because this kind of advertising is reprehensible, but because it is also what their users want. This might provide a nice niche for Mozilla or Konqueror to slide into - perhaps as a full-featured browser that doesn't allow the annoying ads it could gain some market share.
This only delays it a year, which is a notoriously short amount of time. We can't say to ourselves "Good - now I can go back to bed." This give all of us another year to deluge our representatives with letters expressing the danger of this legislation. We can't keep relying on people like senator Leahy to save our asses for us. WRITE!!
They died on the way back to shore, which I gather was just a few hours.
Professionally, cables are typically taped down with gaff tape - it's a cloth tape with a matte finish (usually) that sticks to stuff, but peels off cleanly when you need it to. It tears easily too. You can probably get it at theatre supply stores.
I doubt it - Microsoft owns part of this company (according to the article). They wouldn't want it to ward off their biggest supporters.
The chief scientist at NASA Langley, Dennis M. Bushnell, gave a talk at my university a few weeks ago. He discussed several dozen *very* out-there ideas (personal auto-piloted helicopters for the masses within ten years, for example), but when asked about the viablility of the space elevator concept he dismissed it outright as a pipe dream.
From the article...
The decision, though, has little practical effect. That is because the same appeals court in July blocked the lower court's ruling from being enforced, but Napster never resumed its free service. Instead, it has focused on creating a paid online music service.
So, in the end, we're still crying about a case that was dead long ago. When the RIAA decided to go after Napster, that was the end of it. Everyone here knows that this is a shitty deal, but every little Napster story still gets coverage. The case is closed.
They talk about this showing up in the marine fossil record, but what about on land? The article mentions some geological data, but is there any on-land paleontological evidence to support this? Also, they only talk about it killing plankton - does that mean that it was too far away to kill anything larger directly? Perhaps this is why we haven't run across it in any other fossil records...
Careful how far you take this argument - most laws are based upon some form of "morality" or another. This does not mean that all laws are intrinsically bad - it just reveals one of the limitations of political systems/justice systems in general. De-centralizing government will not cure all of our problems.
Not only is he missing the embedded market, he is missing the scientific computing market - even C/C++ isn't used that often to do things like computational fluid dynamics, etc. In fields that rely on heavy number-crunching, Fortran is still the language of choice (whether by tradition or actual performance benefits is still unclear!). And believe me, there are still many, many people coding away in these fields.
In computational fluid dynamics, where simulations run days or weeks, non-stop, maxing out the CPU the whole time, 5% faster is a lot. The price tag is actually relatively small when compared to the time savings that you can achieve. They certainly don't make sense for the average consumer, but for some simulations, they're worth every cent.