Not so fast there, bub. As it so happens, this little flaw has been known for some time now. Pete Abrams was the first to break the story over 6 months ago, and its a lot more serious than simply falling over.
Because the compensation greatly outweighs the service. I see no problem with fair and equitable trades, no matter what the service. Unfortunately, the music labels are screwing both the artists and the consumers with inflated prices for overhyped crap and unfair contracts. And now that both of the latter have, through new technologies, a means to bypass the former altogether, they are resorting to bullying and threats to maintain their position.
Real commerce is sustained by providing something that attracts your customers to buy from you. It does not include lawsuits, and now lame, biased brainwashing of children (thank $DIETY my kids are homeschooled), to force people to deal with them.
People are voting with their wallets. The record industry needs to either listen and adjust how the practice their trade to attract customers back, or they will die. Crap like this article describes will only piss people off and drive them away even more.
When I first started at my company, it was still a start-up working out of the founders basement. My desk was one of those round breakroom tables at the back of a niche next to the bathroom that was also used to hold everyone's coats.
Point 1) It's actually %100 of those that voted since there is no "Don't put me on the list," option. If there were such an option, how many people do you think would have voted to actually leave themselves open to telemarketers?
Point 2) I pulled %20 out of my butt. It has as much real signifigance as a SlashPoll.:)
It does make you wonder how accurate their process for identifying these people is tho. I would guess that the odds of simply selecting a COMCAST provided IP at random and hitting a person with P2P on their machine is pretty high. If you were wrong you just say, "Oops,I'm sorry, but you have to expect some mistakes," and move on to the next.
The whole thing seems pretty fishy. Or rather, it seems like a fishing expedition. Just like the "Step up and we'll forgive you" schpiel they were handing out a few weeks ago.
Power, schmower! Did that stop SETI@home? The internet has all the computing power you could ever need.
Someone needs to take this idea and run with it as a distrubted project. Not me, of course. I'm just the idea guy. I wouldn't have a clue where to start.
Each client gets a block of pi, starts at the first digit, and attempts to play the next 9238472093847 bits as.mp3 (or any other media format) looking a coherant audio (or video) pattern. Move to bit 2. Rinse. Repeat. Profit!
I knew you'd be in on this. I continued this converstion over on your other comment.
I feel its our duty to inform all IT hopefuls to avoid the military like the plague.
I don't mean to imply the military is a bad thing, or that no one should consider it. I did get some good out of it, but it most assuredly is *NOT* the place for geeks.
C0deM0nkey! As, quiet as you are on/., I just knew you'd have to sound off on this. And folks, it's all %100 true.
...working on the same outdated equipment with no equivalent in the civilian sector, 12-hour shifts and a job that could have been done by anybody (since our network was classified as a "communications" system, our poor admins essentially got stuck transferring messages from one system to the next and writing trouble reports.
To emphasize this point a little, I have to explain how myself and another operator decided to try and modernize the workplace. Normally a person was designated to stand over a teletype waiting for warning, status, or error messages. Commands were entered into the teletype to resolve any issues and the paper output was annotated by hand with notes. In my friends words, it was "monkey work" (no offense CM!). So, not having a monkey around, we decided to create a program to do the work for us. We used VB because we had a copy installed for "training purposes". The program we wrote would listen to the the messages coming from this dinosaur of a processor (straight ASCII IIRC) interpret the message and, if necessary, automatically reply with the proper commands to resolve the issue. The initial version of the program (which I still keep as a souvenir) worked well enough to all but eliminate the need to babysit the teletype.
This is what the AF spent thousands of dollars training me for. A job that could be replaced by 75K VB program.
The parent is correct. If the viewpoint of the grandparent is really a common view of the military from the civilian sector, then the TV ads are doing their job. That is, they paint a pretty picture of a lie.
I was USAF for 14 years, 4 of them as a Computer Operator, and I never saw a single system that was less than 3 years old. In fact the majority of them are signifcantly older than that.
The military isn't about having the newest, the fastest, and the most powerful. It's about stability (so why its so MS-centric I'll never understand). Once a system has proven itself, it stays in place until it absolutely, positively, has to be replaced because it can no longer do its job.
To put this in perspective, the job I was in when I separated was maintaining a top secret network responsible for delivering nuclear launch codes. Sounds pretty important, right? It was so important we were still using 8" floppy disks as the primary storage system. When I left in '99, the plans to upgrade the system to 3.5" disks was being evaluated.
Don't plan to use the military to get an IT education or experience. You'll be severly disappointed.
That's true only if the bounce goes back to the original recipient. In the case of SoBig.F, the recipient of the bounce is forged, so it is indeed a case of geometric spreading.
Ok, I see.
Except I wasn't pursuing the impact on a single machine. I was looking at the affect on the net as a whole. A single letter causes X drain on the system. A bounce causes the same drain. If Y letters are sent by SoBig.F, they cause X*Y drain. If each letter generates a bounce, whether to the true originator or not, the effect is 2(X*Y) or twice the problem.
No, what he meant was we would like to see how many *attempts* there were, not just the % of successes. Without that information it is not possible to make an intelligent conclusion.
The article seems to want us to draw the conclusion that Linux is not as secure as MS. And while I won't dismiss the idea entirely, it's not reasonable to accept this without knowing more.
Did Linux repel only 25% of the attacks on it? 50%? 90%? How well did MS fare? We don't know. It doesn't say.
Gonna have to disagree with your conclusion. When you have x^y where x is the size/impact of a single letter and y is the branching factor (average number of recipients per message) than (x+1)^y isn't a great difference. You see what I am saying?
And I have to disagree with your math.
If x is the size/impact of a single letter, then including the impact of a bounce is (2x) not (x+1). And I call that a significant difference.
Sending cash directly to the artist is NOT an option.
[WORF]There are always options.[/WORF]
Of course its an option. Just because you don't agree with it, doesn't mean it isn't available to those who do. Sending letter bombs to RIAA fat cats, puncturing your eardrums in protest, or whining ineffectually on/. are options too.
I'm not disagreeing with your reasons, just your conclusion. You say "you are defrauding your employer, and the client is acting dishonestly", but list pirating as an option. Both are ways of bucking the system. How can you acknowledge one and not the other?
Mr Oppenheim also said the RIAA was immume from rules on unreasonable searches on the internet, because it did not have links with law enforcement agencies.
So if you aren't affiliated with a law enforcement agency, you can do whatever you want online? Seems to me they could be charged with a real crime then. What's the on-line equivilant of being peeping tom?
Reminds me of the story (urban ledgend?) about the lawyer who insured his cigars, smoked them, and won the insurance claim in court because the contract didn't specify what kind of fire. Then the dumb bastard was charged with multiple counts of arson and fined 10x what he got from the insurance.
Coincidently, I just finished Understanding Comics and began Reinventing Comics last night (borrowed form the library). UC was very insightful (+1) not only for Comics but for artistic works in general. I imagine RC will be at least as interesting.
I have to agree with the parent that although Stan Lee is arguably the father of the modern comic, his biography, while probably very interesting, is not likely to be more important.
A biography is about looking at the past. UC and RC look at the past *and* the future.
But that's what AI is for, at least partially. The ability to determine the difference between a nerve and an artery is just a matter of defining the difference between the two. Not a trivial task by any means, but the point is, the ability for a robot to make that distinction will eventually be possible. Then, knowing what an artery looks/feels/smells like, an AI could also determine the function of any particular artery it comes across. Again, all we're talking about is a finite (albeit massive) amount of information that can be correleated with the patient in front of the AI.
The fact that a particular structure is abnormal is the easiest thing to determine. It doesn't fit the normal picture. The means of identifying what the structure really is doing is just a matter of visual recognition (perhaps even beyond the visible spectrum) and deduction. And that is exactly the kind of advancement in robotics the author of TFA is talking about.
Slashdot Mirror
Not so fast there, bub. As it so happens, this little flaw has been known for some time now. Pete Abrams was the first to break the story over 6 months ago, and its a lot more serious than simply falling over.
Because the compensation greatly outweighs the service. I see no problem with fair and equitable trades, no matter what the service. Unfortunately, the music labels are screwing both the artists and the consumers with inflated prices for overhyped crap and unfair contracts. And now that both of the latter have, through new technologies, a means to bypass the former altogether, they are resorting to bullying and threats to maintain their position.
Real commerce is sustained by providing something that attracts your customers to buy from you. It does not include lawsuits, and now lame, biased brainwashing of children (thank $DIETY my kids are homeschooled), to force people to deal with them.
People are voting with their wallets. The record industry needs to either listen and adjust how the practice their trade to attract customers back, or they will die. Crap like this article describes will only piss people off and drive them away even more.
My $0.02
When I first started at my company, it was still a start-up working out of the founders basement. My desk was one of those round breakroom tables at the back of a niche next to the bathroom that was also used to hold everyone's coats.
:)
Now I'm in a nice comfy cube.
Damn. I was thinking the exact same thing. They're acting exactly like a two year old. Lots of noise and whining; zero reason behind it.
Somebody spank them already and put them out of our misery.
Here comes trouble... ;)
:)
Point 1) It's actually %100 of those that voted since there is no "Don't put me on the list," option. If there were such an option, how many people do you think would have voted to actually leave themselves open to telemarketers?
Point 2) I pulled %20 out of my butt. It has as much real signifigance as a SlashPoll.
The right decision?
How can FIFTY FREAKIN' MILLION votes for this thing be wrong?
"Gee, only 20% of the nation signed up for this. I guess we don't need it."
Give me a break.
Where are my Mod points when I actually have a reaosn to use them?
It does make you wonder how accurate their process for identifying these people is tho. I would guess that the odds of simply selecting a COMCAST provided IP at random and hitting a person with P2P on their machine is pretty high. If you were wrong you just say, "Oops,I'm sorry, but you have to expect some mistakes," and move on to the next.
The whole thing seems pretty fishy. Or rather, it seems like a fishing expedition. Just like the "Step up and we'll forgive you" schpiel they were handing out a few weeks ago.
"In use" :-P
Lame tabloid-esque horoscopes sprinkled with tech-speak to attract click thrus to their advertising.
What a waste of bandwidth.
Let modding begin.
3. ???
Power, schmower! Did that stop SETI@home? The internet has all the computing power you could ever need.
Someone needs to take this idea and run with it as a distrubted project. Not me, of course. I'm just the idea guy. I wouldn't have a clue where to start.
I smell a distributed project!
.mp3 (or any other media format) looking a coherant audio (or video) pattern. Move to bit 2. Rinse. Repeat. Profit!
Each client gets a block of pi, starts at the first digit, and attempts to play the next 9238472093847 bits as
I knew you'd be in on this. I continued this converstion over on your other comment.
I feel its our duty to inform all IT hopefuls to avoid the military like the plague.
I don't mean to imply the military is a bad thing, or that no one should consider it. I did get some good out of it, but it most assuredly is *NOT* the place for geeks.
C0deM0nkey! /., I just knew you'd have to sound off on this. And folks, it's all %100 true.
...working on the same outdated equipment with no equivalent in the civilian sector, 12-hour shifts and a job that could have been done by anybody (since our network was classified as a "communications" system, our poor admins essentially got stuck transferring messages from one system to the next and writing trouble reports.
As, quiet as you are on
To emphasize this point a little, I have to explain how myself and another operator decided to try and modernize the workplace. Normally a person was designated to stand over a teletype waiting for warning, status, or error messages. Commands were entered into the teletype to resolve any issues and the paper output was annotated by hand with notes. In my friends words, it was "monkey work" (no offense CM!).
So, not having a monkey around, we decided to create a program to do the work for us. We used VB because we had a copy installed for "training purposes". The program we wrote would listen to the the messages coming from this dinosaur of a processor (straight ASCII IIRC) interpret the message and, if necessary, automatically reply with the proper commands to resolve the issue. The initial version of the program (which I still keep as a souvenir) worked well enough to all but eliminate the need to babysit the teletype.
This is what the AF spent thousands of dollars training me for. A job that could be replaced by 75K VB program.
Just say "No!" indeed.
The parent is correct. If the viewpoint of the grandparent is really a common view of the military from the civilian sector, then the TV ads are doing their job. That is, they paint a pretty picture of a lie.
I was USAF for 14 years, 4 of them as a Computer Operator, and I never saw a single system that was less than 3 years old. In fact the majority of them are signifcantly older than that.
The military isn't about having the newest, the fastest, and the most powerful. It's about stability (so why its so MS-centric I'll never understand). Once a system has proven itself, it stays in place until it absolutely, positively, has to be replaced because it can no longer do its job.
To put this in perspective, the job I was in when I separated was maintaining a top secret network responsible for delivering nuclear launch codes. Sounds pretty important, right? It was so important we were still using 8" floppy disks as the primary storage system. When I left in '99, the plans to upgrade the system to 3.5" disks was being evaluated.
Don't plan to use the military to get an IT education or experience. You'll be severly disappointed.
That's true only if the bounce goes back to the original recipient. In the case of SoBig.F, the recipient of the bounce is forged, so it is indeed a case of geometric spreading.
Ok, I see.
Except I wasn't pursuing the impact on a single machine. I was looking at the affect on the net as a whole. A single letter causes X drain on the system. A bounce causes the same drain. If Y letters are sent by SoBig.F, they cause X*Y drain. If each letter generates a bounce, whether to the true originator or not, the effect is 2(X*Y) or twice the problem.
No, what he meant was we would like to see how many *attempts* there were, not just the % of successes. Without that information it is not possible to make an intelligent conclusion.
The article seems to want us to draw the conclusion that Linux is not as secure as MS. And while I won't dismiss the idea entirely, it's not reasonable to accept this without knowing more.
Did Linux repel only 25% of the attacks on it? 50%? 90%? How well did MS fare? We don't know. It doesn't say.
To be blunt, this article is a waste of time.
Gonna have to disagree with your conclusion. When you have x^y where x is the size/impact of a single letter and y is the branching factor (average number of recipients per message) than (x+1)^y isn't a great difference. You see what I am saying?
And I have to disagree with your math.
If x is the size/impact of a single letter, then including the impact of a bounce is (2x) not (x+1). And I call that a significant difference.
Sending cash directly to the artist is NOT an option.
/. are options too.
[WORF]There are always options.[/WORF]
Of course its an option. Just because you don't agree with it, doesn't mean it isn't available to those who do. Sending letter bombs to RIAA fat cats, puncturing your eardrums in protest, or whining ineffectually on
I'm not disagreeing with your reasons, just your conclusion. You say "you are defrauding your employer, and the client is acting dishonestly", but list pirating as an option. Both are ways of bucking the system. How can you acknowledge one and not the other?
Ah, well. It's a good story anyway. Since its got something of a moral lesson to it, let's attribute it to Aesop and call it a fable.
Mr Oppenheim also said the RIAA was immume from rules on unreasonable searches on the internet, because it did not have links with law enforcement agencies.
So if you aren't affiliated with a law enforcement agency, you can do whatever you want online? Seems to me they could be charged with a real crime then. What's the on-line equivilant of being peeping tom?
Reminds me of the story (urban ledgend?) about the lawyer who insured his cigars, smoked them, and won the insurance claim in court because the contract didn't specify what kind of fire. Then the dumb bastard was charged with multiple counts of arson and fined 10x what he got from the insurance.
You're never as smart as you think you are.
Then again, we should have a superhero called GoldMan (Gold Man)! That would kick ass! Why didn't Stan Lee think of that?
It was done. Just not by Marvel.
Coincidently, I just finished Understanding Comics and began Reinventing Comics last night (borrowed form the library). UC was very insightful (+1) not only for Comics but for artistic works in general. I imagine RC will be at least as interesting.
I have to agree with the parent that although Stan Lee is arguably the father of the modern comic, his biography, while probably very interesting, is not likely to be more important.
A biography is about looking at the past. UC and RC look at the past *and* the future.
But that's what AI is for, at least partially. The ability to determine the difference between a nerve and an artery is just a matter of defining the difference between the two. Not a trivial task by any means, but the point is, the ability for a robot to make that distinction will eventually be possible. Then, knowing what an artery looks/feels/smells like, an AI could also determine the function of any particular artery it comes across. Again, all we're talking about is a finite (albeit massive) amount of information that can be correleated with the patient in front of the AI.
The fact that a particular structure is abnormal is the easiest thing to determine. It doesn't fit the normal picture. The means of identifying what the structure really is doing is just a matter of visual recognition (perhaps even beyond the visible spectrum) and deduction. And that is exactly the kind of advancement in robotics the author of TFA is talking about.