>>Unix machines (Linux, SGI, OS X) are becoming the standard for Hollywood level style movies - they're powerful, you can cluster them with relative ease, and they don't crash that often.
Actually, SGI is the standard and has been for a while. Linux is becoming one and OSX probably never will be. And yes these machines do crash alot. Speaking from experience as someone who was one of the sys admin's of a render farm at an effects house, our 8 and 16 proc. Origin 2k's went down alot. Not because the OS was messed up or we were bad admins, but because we pushed them really, really hard. I used to replace disks in arrays and on systems at least once a week. The workstations used to puke all the time. Why? NFS, SAN, memory, that crazy Maya script someone wrote, etc. etc. Any number of reasons.
Unix is great and it gets the job done better over all, but keep in mind how hard these guys/gals are pushing this equipment. Linux on a pumped x86 is the next workstation of the movie industry as they look to cut costs, there's a lot of reasons that film studios and FX houses are looking at Linux, cost being probably the most important. Keeping the per shot/frame cost down of matte painting and animation is really the key for the accountants and producers at these places.
Remember, most CG work is stuff you don't notice in the movies, like color correction, background things like snow or rain, lighting effects, etc. Stuff like LoTR, tho more common these days, isn't the bread and butter of FX houses. It's the utility work that gets these guys through the times between the big projects.
Side note: I don't dislike OSX, however to say it's going to be the "film" standard is probably not correct. OSX with Maya will find it's way in to ad agencies and boutique design houses who are very mac centric, but the hardware cost is high overall and the software selection is poor. Many might argue with me, but the big fx houses are very invested in SGI hardware right now and are starting to put in Linux based hardware to take advantage of the costs.
I think you might be screwed. With video games becoming more and more like a form of interactive TV and games become "served" from a central hosting location (kinda like TV is in some respects) and as consumers replace watching TV with using their computer or game console to play vids, I wouldn't at all be suprised to see Coke cans start showing up in the immersive world games out there.
Just a thought, I could be way off, but there are lot of people looking at on-line gaming as a future source of revenue, such as Sony and Microsoft.
>> First of all, let me point out that your 3-5 percent error rate is probably a made up number (97.4 percent of all statistics are made up on the spot and yours is no exception!).:-)
Actually, my stat is based on real numbers in our environment. We track how many sites we have to recatagorize or create an exception for in a given month against how many total unqiue blocked URL's visited by the user base, and this gives us a percentage that tells us what the error rate is for our user base's browsing habits. Of course this isn't the best possible math because there are alot of variables still, so the margin of error is high (e.g. a user doesn't complain).
>> some of them like SmartFilter actually have a human categorizing the web pages
as do all the filters I eval'd, in addition to catagorization agent(s) they run. SurfControl for example, told me that they only evaluate questionable ones, as well as a sampling of what their bots find, so it's mix with the bots taking the majority of the work, just like any other search engine out there.
>> SF has something like 30 different categories
Again, so do almost all the filter's I've evaluated.
>> I guarantee you that, given a modest budget, you cannot write an AI that will class millions of web sites into 30 content categories (2^30 combinations) based on fuzzy human definitions.
I'm not sure I agree here, but I don't know enough about search technology to argue the point well, but what you're suggesting is that a group of humans could do it instead? I don't really think that makes much sense...
>> But you forgot one really obvious thing. This mistake by SmartFilter was probably just that -- a mistake, an accident, human fallibility, operator error.
Actually, I didn't forget that. I made the point by saying "but I'm willing to bet that no human said "hey let's block SourceForge because we don't like it and that'll piss everyone off"". Meaning that I doubt it was intentional to catagorize the thing as an MP3 site, because we all know it isn't one, even a trained monkey would see that. However, I'm suggesting it got catagorized automatically with no checks, or someone wasn't paying attention when they clicked the button.
Almost all of these filters work off of a rule base, just like a firewall, where rule 1 is executed first on down. Plus most filters have catagories which group URL's by, well, catagory. When you set up the rule base you choose which catagories to block, who is going to get blocked (all, certain workstations (ip's) or users (if you have user monitoring that tracks who's logged in where).
So you're company may or may not block MP3 sites, or as you say, the db could be out of date. These filters are pretty flexible rule-wise, and so depending on how it's configured, it could be really stringent or not. Maybe they are just logging activity rather than blocking (??), that's possible too.
My company uses SurfControl's web filter product. In my experience of trying to administer the thing, is that it *usually* gets the catagory right. Supposedly these filter makers are verifying their databases, of which you pay through the nose to subscribe to. I've found about a 3-5% error rate, meaning they've miscatagorized that many of the total catagorized sites and this usually draws some level of corrective action to change the blockage.
My hunch is that these guys (filter makers) wrote a search engine to do the catagorization and are just doing a dictionary score to wieght a page and make a decision on the results. So SourceForge probably scored high on the words "Download" and "MP3", or something like that, and since they both probably occur alot seeing as how there are alot of MP3 tools on that site for download it got catagorized as such. This doesn't make it right, but I'm willing to bet that no human said "hey let's block SourceForge because we don't like it and that'll piss everyone off".
Most likely, the admins using the big-brother-ware in question can override the catagory and/or create an exception rule to allow people through to mis-blocked sites. But that depends on corporate policy. My company adopted a "if it's something you use for work, we'll unblock it right away" policy that works pretty well and they've followed through on it too. However, there is a possibility that someone would place implicit trust in the filter and not want to change anything they block. This would be bad (IMHO) because, just like a search engine or anything else, it's not perfect and these things are subject to human error in the end. I can tell you it's cut down the amount of pr0n bandwidth being used on my network, which is really nice because my downloads take way less time now.
"I get a static IP, good speed, Linux supported, etc."
Just curious what does "Linux Supported" actually mean? I see this from DSL providers but still haven't figured it out. As far as I'm concerned a computer is a computer on your network and so how does a DSL line support linux (or not support it)?
Count how many (and how serious) the security fixes are that Microsoft puts out per month compared to RedHat and Apple. Then look at the speed at which each put them out. Apple was slow on this one, but they're just getting used to having to send patches out so fast.
MS has been doing this for years and still can't get a patch out right away. And when they do, it needs 3 subsequent release to get it right.
One thing to consider (not the only one of course) is that anyone who's worked for a manufacturer/software company knows that a massive source of revenue is support. In fact some companies rely on those support dollars beyond what they're getting for new purchases. especially those products which are big ticket (e.g. Avid, Discrete Logic, Oracle, SAP) which cost over $100k+ to buy into and then %15 (or some percentage) of the cost per year for support. Just so you can get someone on the phone to explain that that's "known issue" and "we're working on that for the next release", etc. etc.
The problem is that the support model helps drive revenue and if a company made perfect code, poof, support dollars start to dissappear. Besides, most companies can't produce a marketing flyer that's error free, let alone made bug free code. Plus, when you build a complex app, how on earth can you imagine every possible user interaction that can go in to it? Given enough tries someone will figure out how to break it in some unimaginable way you never thought of because there's more of them using it and less of you testing it.
Yes, you (and some of the other replies to my post) have some good points. I think what I was getting at though, was that based on the type of complaints being fielded here and other places they take the tone of "screw the media companies" and "they need to change" (which may be true), but very few suggest what is wrong with the current model besides that it "sucks" or it seems that everyone wants it all for free with no ads, which as I said and will say over and over again, is unrealistic (at least in the US).
I'm pretty much in the market economy camp. Which is to say that since the US is a market based system, then let the market drive it. I know these (and most) companies fight that because it's alot of work and money to change with the market (and the consumer). So legislating their niche is a better deal all around. I find that appalling and lacking in foresight. However, since it is a market economy we exist in, then those companies also have the option to defend their market model, even if goes against the grain of the consumer. Who will win? Well usually it's the market (and consumer) in the end, because we'll drive them to change, one way or another. If they stick to something that is losing popularity and therefore revenue, they will change to meet it.
What's unfortunate, as you point out, is that we (I mean a collective "we" not you specifically) the consumer accept "mind-numbing" material as the norm, thus punishing quality, which in turn (in my opinion) makes it so I want to skip the ads, which I do with my TiVo. In the end of this debate, it will probably boil down to one question; do enough of the consumers of TV care? because that will determine which side is successful, because it is we as the collective that choose to consume this stuff or not.
>>That spying attempt is going to go down in history as one of the dumbest moves in the history of customer relations
Yes it will.
But, it's an advertisiers wet dream, and anyone is a fool to think that by plugging in that phone cord to the back of your TiVo or replay box you're just uploading what pay movies you bought, diagnostic data and getting the latest guide info.
It may be anonymous (or not), but they are watching what you watch. It's the Neilson Ratings, on steroids.
No one wants ads (I don't) No one wants to pay for programming (although we do anyway to some extent, cable, hbo, etc.) No one wants adverts plugged in the background and No one wants to pay for public tv
So where does that leave us? While I fundamentally agree that it is my choice to watch ads or not while at home, I also understand that economics and the free market play a role here. I cannot expect that someone is going to produce or air a TV show without getting anything in return for it. That's just not reasonable. Now if we don't want commercials, then we'd better start supporting our publicly funded media, because they're only ones who do that (and they're so underfunded they can't seem to get away from sponsors anyway). Otherwise, we're stuck with ads, because there is no other business model for media content except to sell ads (either in the program or between segments) or to sell the programming via subscription.
What further frustrates me, are the posts where people are declaring that these big media co's need to update their antiquated business model; To what, I ask? How should they update it? and where else are they going to get their revenue?
It's the same thing with the music industry. We like our nice sounding CD's and many people enjoy the big concerts and personalities developed and paid for by these entertainment co's, but everyone's complaining that they're trying to make a buck. Sheesh, people, do you realize how much it costs to pay the artists (who don't get enough from records anyway), make that nice sounding record, and put on a concert...
Now, I'm not saying that the media co's and their strong arm legal tatics don't reek of misconduct or that these companies don't need to adapt their methods for selling and capturing the marketplace somewhat, but I have to side with them in some ways because they are the ones getting that shaft at both ends financially (and don't give me that "they're so rich it doens't matter" crap, this is capitalism, not charity).
They have a right to be pissed that their ads are getting skipped, because what happens next is that advertisers start saying "well 30% of the viewers of your shows skipped our ad, so we want to 30% credit back" or in the future they force a cheaper rate. Which in turn impacts profits, which then forces the studio to limit what they make, thus impacting selection for the consumer. Or even worse, forcing production companies and studios out of business so that it then narrows who is producing content. Which as we all know would suck.
I think it would come down to intent. Of course if copying is an essential step to using it, that is probably permitted under most EULA language, such as installation from CD-ROM to your hard drive in order to use the product. But if you were to go make a copy of the cdrom so your buddy could use it too, then that violates the EULA if the EULA says copying is prohibited, and it would have to be determined that your copying was under the intent to distribute, which is illegal. So I'm willing to take a guess that most sofwtare companies could care less if you cloned their cd-rom for a backup copy, as long as it stays in your possession and is only installed and used in accordance with the license your purchased.
I'm sure there are more technical terms for the legal pretenses that this falls under, but IANAL. But loose interpretations usually are judged on intent and reasonableness. So if you were to claim it was an "essential step" to copy that cd-rom and install it on your friends computer in addition to your in order for you to use the software, probably isn't gonna fly.
I think the SMTP scanner you are talking about is called SMTP Scaner (sic). It's an Asian based site with some of the worst English I've seen in a while describing their products.
I get hits from "test@efunsoft.com" mail addresses all the time in Sendmail, which I figure are people with scanners looking for holes.
I'm about to start setting up reverse traps to mess with them, but so many are on dial-ups it's tough to do and be effective. I'm just blocking them now.
I miss the good ol days of finger and DNS hosts who's reverses actually worked.
First off, in case you aren't from Seattle (or Washington State), or don't pay attention to local and state politics and economics here, you have to know that the State of Washington is panicking right now trying to figure out how to pay for a big budget short-fall. They don't want to raise taxes or cut programs. This isn't much different from many other states right now.
What's going on here however, is that the State level government is looking for tax revenue without raising general taxes on the people. Washington State is mostly democratic and most controlled by the west side of the state. This means that we have alot of taxes and alot of "programs" to support our urban areas and their social needs. I think *all* of the politicians (especially democrats) are too afraid to raise taxes for fear of voter backlash.
We had a referrendum here called I-747 that was passed by the voters but recently repealed by the State for various reasons (most of which were political), but it really pissed off all the politicians in the state because it said the State couldn't raise any tax more than 1% with out putting it to the people for a vote first. I think it also made them fear the voters a little bit. Hence why you will see things like this, the legislators looking for a way to gain revenue and protect their favorite programs without directly affecting the general public's pocketbook and vote.
Next, you have to look at the economy in our state. We have tons of little and some large software and web companies who develop here, but do not actually conduct the pressing, shipment or production of the software here. So for tax reasons, the State is looking at these and seeing dollars flying by that it wants a piece of. What's really interesting, is that companies like Amazon (I know they aren't software really) just have their corporate and web site operations here, but the actual shipping takes place elsewhere, probably mostly for logistics reasons, but I bet it's for tax reasons too. Starbucks is the same way, and so is Microsoft. But imagine the money the State would get if they taxed development. All those web companies would have to pay, as well as MSFT (who gets pretty big breaks for it's R&D work currently).
I wouldn't be surprised if this software "development" tax issue expands to include web development directly. Right now that is what many small companies produce as their sole product, but it's not taxed that way because it's currently considered a service. I see it as the State trying to keep up with the present, but still trying to apply a 20 year old tax model to a modern day industry.
The last thing to look at is the fact that Boeing just left and what it left behind is quickly starting to consolidate and dry up. So I think our politicians are now looking at the loss of tax revenue from Boeing manufacturing (which was HUGE here for many years) and they want something to replace that.
I tend to be on the more liberal side of the fence for politics, but I think we are currently faced with a bloated government in Washington State that is very ineffecient and needs to trim down. I also think because we sit in a very divided (almost 50/50 split) in the house and senate (Wa. State not fed) no one wants to, or maybe even can, cut taxes and programs when it's probably the best move right now given the current economic conditions in the state.
My wife, who is an economist and fairly conservative, calls Washington "tariff town". Just another example, there's tax on the boards right now to raise the gas tax by $0.07 a gallon. Currently it's $0.23 per gallon (not to mention local taxes). We need some relief, but dinging the software businesses is just going to drive them away. In the end it's probably a bad idea because fewer businesses = fewer jobs = less peronsal income = less tax revenue.
This is probably a dumb question, but it comes from my ignorance of Squid. How would Squid stop online ads or pop-ups? Especially if you're only a single use on a dial-up or DSL?
My wife, who is NOT a techie (far from it), loves our TiVo. In fact it was her who pushed me to get it. As geek, I do love it now, but was skeptical at first due to the added monthly cost.
But she found it easy to setup and get working. It has changed how we watch TV, I do find I watch more TV on a weekly basis, however, I don't on a daily basis. I record a bunch of stuff, then read the paper and watch it on Saturday AM.
I think more importantly as to why the market for PVR's isn't great is that they are expensive and they cost money every month (or one lump sum in the beginning). So Joe User, who already is looking at $30/mo min. cable bill then has to add $10 a month on to that (or $270 up front).
So in this economy, many potential customers of PVR's aren't out technology shopping for those extra luxury items (which a PVR really is). I admit at this point, it did cross my mind as to whether my budget could afford it right now in case things got tight. I'm guessing that's part of the problem for TiVO and others. I sure hope they keep it going, I do like their service.
Looks like TiVo and SONICBlue will go to war over this, it's gonna be interesting: Yahoo News with the story.
I just wonder what the outcome will be. TiVo claims they have patents that cover all the DVR functions, and SONICBlue claims they now have the DVR patents they need for the DVR functions. Each side claims licensing is going to give them a big revenue push. Just a guess, they are expecting the otherside to bow down and license the technology from them.
Whoa relax, that post was meant as a little joke for those of us who have been around music and musicians. We all know some, smart and dumb, I was just having a little fun. I'm a guitarist too and sometimes dabble in other instruments, I was merely making fun of something of which I love. A bit of dry humor maybe, but not enough to get up in arms about.
However, I do agree with you on the moderating part, I don't really understand the "insightful" part myself. "funny" at level 2 maybe, but not "insightful". My post was about as "insightful" as a cup of playdough.
I don't pretend to understand the ways of/. moderation, maybe they thought I was making some serious point. No one is stereo-typing anyone (well, maybe the drummers, my drummer usually deserves it).
I wonder if ATI's All-In-Wonder and others will get swept up in this? Just a thought since there are several graphics card co's creating TV tuner and recording capabilities in to their cards and providing software for doing TiVo and Replay like functions (record and organize).
Just wondering how far SonicBlue will push the patents? I imagine we'll see TiVo and others reach some sort of license deal and eventually pass the cost on to us in the end, as it usually happens.
What really gives me pause about this is that most musicians I know can barely figure out their effects pedals, let alone get their amps setup right; I don't know how they're going to deal with ethernet (and some of these guys are pretty accomplished).
I can see it now; the lead, rhythm and bass guitarists on stage battling for QoS priority on the switch.
Whatever you do don't let the drummers know about this, the last thing we need is networked drums. Drummers hog enough of the audio spectrum, stage and free beer as it is, we don't need them hogging bandwidth also.
I say this out of total love and respect for my musician friends of course.
There are some books that make wonderful movies, there are others that just...well...they don't make good movies for one reason or the other.
Dune had alot of potential. Lynch and his crew could have been the right fit, then again it proved otherwise didn't it? However I just can't see how a lower budget that TV requires can possibly do justice to this series. Dune is best left on pages, not on the screen.
The story is so inner-focused and delves quite deeply in to socialoligical, political, and religious subjects that a resonable length film version just hurts the story that was built in the minds eye by reading the book. The film maker has to cut corners somewhere, and has to make comprimises. Not everything can translate to screen from the page. Inner-dialog seems to be one of the hardest (judging by Hollywood's track record) and this is the backbone of the Dune books.
Sci-Fi channel will have to make this movie accesible to everyone, those who've read the story and those who haven't. I personally don't think they pulled off Dune that well and, although Children is more filmable than other books, I just see it being too much of a stretch to get done in a resonable amount of time and still keep the story intact, plus deliver a vivid and memorable visual experience that both the experienced reader of Dune series and the unitiated can appreciate.
Both Harry Potter (although not even the same league of course) and LoTR I think suffer (and will suffer) the same problem; legions of fans who have a distinct personal attachment to and "vision" of what the characters, scenery and meanings of various points and dialog are who come away from the screen version of the story dissapointed or not satisfied because of the limits that film imposes on certain stories.
I personally would love to have a big-budget Dune made again, especially using todays modern effects capabilities. I don't want it just for the effects, but Herbert's characters and his backdrops demand it. Not even considering the cinematic, plot and overall problems delivering a coherent story on screen, I'm afraid that the TV version can't deliver this how it should be done because they can't possibly justify spending the money to do the effects right. They just don't make enough off the advertising and product sales (DVD, etc.).
Just wait until Qwest and SW Bell (and other telco's) get their new "adjusted pricing" for DSL out.
I'm sure they smell blood in the water and I bet their "operating costs" for DSL are going to magically go up as the cable world disintegrates. I mean why not? Their main competition could be gone in a matter of weeks and there's no clear alternative to DSL besides satellite, which is still not fully market tested and most users aren't aware of it yet.
Even though there are a bunch of different options for internet access, if you're a cable user and things do go dark, get ready to stand in a long line for getting DSL service.
Never mind the virus scanners, I bet 99% (if not more) of all checksum utilities will see it (tripwire, et al);-)
How on earth can anyone (i.e. FBI) think they're going to get a trojan installed on a bad guys machine with out notice. Sure, some won't notice, but if I were doing bad things (disclaimer: I'm not!!) I would be really paranoid and doing regular MD5 scans of my file's checksums would be apart of that now that I know what they're up to.
Last time I checked, there is little one can do to circumvent a Tripwire checksum scan if the Tripwire database wasn't compromised.
Slashdot Mirror
>>Unix machines (Linux, SGI, OS X) are becoming the standard for Hollywood level style movies - they're powerful, you can cluster them with relative ease, and they don't crash that often.
Actually, SGI is the standard and has been for a while. Linux is becoming one and OSX probably never will be. And yes these machines do crash alot. Speaking from experience as someone who was one of the sys admin's of a render farm at an effects house, our 8 and 16 proc. Origin 2k's went down alot. Not because the OS was messed up or we were bad admins, but because we pushed them really, really hard. I used to replace disks in arrays and on systems at least once a week. The workstations used to puke all the time. Why? NFS, SAN, memory, that crazy Maya script someone wrote, etc. etc. Any number of reasons.
Unix is great and it gets the job done better over all, but keep in mind how hard these guys/gals are pushing this equipment. Linux on a pumped x86 is the next workstation of the movie industry as they look to cut costs, there's a lot of reasons that film studios and FX houses are looking at Linux, cost being probably the most important. Keeping the per shot/frame cost down of matte painting and animation is really the key for the accountants and producers at these places.
Remember, most CG work is stuff you don't notice in the movies, like color correction, background things like snow or rain, lighting effects, etc. Stuff like LoTR, tho more common these days, isn't the bread and butter of FX houses. It's the utility work that gets these guys through the times between the big projects.
Side note: I don't dislike OSX, however to say it's going to be the "film" standard is probably not correct. OSX with Maya will find it's way in to ad agencies and boutique design houses who are very mac centric, but the hardware cost is high overall and the software selection is poor. Many might argue with me, but the big fx houses are very invested in SGI hardware right now and are starting to put in Linux based hardware to take advantage of the costs.
-s
I think you might be screwed. With video games becoming more and more like a form of interactive TV and games become "served" from a central hosting location (kinda like TV is in some respects) and as consumers replace watching TV with using their computer or game console to play vids, I wouldn't at all be suprised to see Coke cans start showing up in the immersive world games out there.
Just a thought, I could be way off, but there are lot of people looking at on-line gaming as a future source of revenue, such as Sony and Microsoft.
-s
>> First of all, let me point out that your 3-5 percent error rate is probably a made up number (97.4 percent of all statistics are made up on the spot and yours is no exception!). :-)
Actually, my stat is based on real numbers in our environment. We track how many sites we have to recatagorize or create an exception for in a given month against how many total unqiue blocked URL's visited by the user base, and this gives us a percentage that tells us what the error rate is for our user base's browsing habits. Of course this isn't the best possible math because there are alot of variables still, so the margin of error is high (e.g. a user doesn't complain).
>> some of them like SmartFilter actually have a human categorizing the web pages
as do all the filters I eval'd, in addition to catagorization agent(s) they run. SurfControl for example, told me that they only evaluate questionable ones, as well as a sampling of what their bots find, so it's mix with the bots taking the majority of the work, just like any other search engine out there.
>> SF has something like 30 different categories
Again, so do almost all the filter's I've evaluated.
>> I guarantee you that, given a modest budget, you cannot write an AI that will class millions of web sites into 30 content categories (2^30 combinations) based on fuzzy human definitions.
I'm not sure I agree here, but I don't know enough about search technology to argue the point well, but what you're suggesting is that a group of humans could do it instead? I don't really think that makes much sense...
>> But you forgot one really obvious thing. This mistake by SmartFilter was probably just that -- a mistake, an accident, human fallibility, operator error.
Actually, I didn't forget that. I made the point by saying "but I'm willing to bet that no human said "hey let's block SourceForge because we don't like it and that'll piss everyone off"". Meaning that I doubt it was intentional to catagorize the thing as an MP3 site, because we all know it isn't one, even a trained monkey would see that. However, I'm suggesting it got catagorized automatically with no checks, or someone wasn't paying attention when they clicked the button.
-s
Almost all of these filters work off of a rule base, just like a firewall, where rule 1 is executed first on down. Plus most filters have catagories which group URL's by, well, catagory. When you set up the rule base you choose which catagories to block, who is going to get blocked (all, certain workstations (ip's) or users (if you have user monitoring that tracks who's logged in where).
So you're company may or may not block MP3 sites, or as you say, the db could be out of date. These filters are pretty flexible rule-wise, and so depending on how it's configured, it could be really stringent or not. Maybe they are just logging activity rather than blocking (??), that's possible too.
-s
They are probably blocking the "Anonymous Proxy" catagory too, and I'm pretty sure Anonymizer is in that.
-s
My company uses SurfControl's web filter product. In my experience of trying to administer the thing, is that it *usually* gets the catagory right. Supposedly these filter makers are verifying their databases, of which you pay through the nose to subscribe to. I've found about a 3-5% error rate, meaning they've miscatagorized that many of the total catagorized sites and this usually draws some level of corrective action to change the blockage.
My hunch is that these guys (filter makers) wrote a search engine to do the catagorization and are just doing a dictionary score to wieght a page and make a decision on the results. So SourceForge probably scored high on the words "Download" and "MP3", or something like that, and since they both probably occur alot seeing as how there are alot of MP3 tools on that site for download it got catagorized as such. This doesn't make it right, but I'm willing to bet that no human said "hey let's block SourceForge because we don't like it and that'll piss everyone off".
Most likely, the admins using the big-brother-ware in question can override the catagory and/or create an exception rule to allow people through to mis-blocked sites. But that depends on corporate policy. My company adopted a "if it's something you use for work, we'll unblock it right away" policy that works pretty well and they've followed through on it too. However, there is a possibility that someone would place implicit trust in the filter and not want to change anything they block. This would be bad (IMHO) because, just like a search engine or anything else, it's not perfect and these things are subject to human error in the end. I can tell you it's cut down the amount of pr0n bandwidth being used on my network, which is really nice because my downloads take way less time now.
-s
"I get a static IP, good speed, Linux supported, etc."
Just curious what does "Linux Supported" actually mean? I see this from DSL providers but still haven't figured it out. As far as I'm concerned a computer is a computer on your network and so how does a DSL line support linux (or not support it)?
-s
Count how many (and how serious) the security fixes are that Microsoft puts out per month compared to RedHat and Apple. Then look at the speed at which each put them out. Apple was slow on this one, but they're just getting used to having to send patches out so fast.
MS has been doing this for years and still can't get a patch out right away. And when they do, it needs 3 subsequent release to get it right.
-s
One thing to consider (not the only one of course) is that anyone who's worked for a manufacturer/software company knows that a massive source of revenue is support. In fact some companies rely on those support dollars beyond what they're getting for new purchases. especially those products which are big ticket (e.g. Avid, Discrete Logic, Oracle, SAP) which cost over $100k+ to buy into and then %15 (or some percentage) of the cost per year for support. Just so you can get someone on the phone to explain that that's "known issue" and "we're working on that for the next release", etc. etc.
The problem is that the support model helps drive revenue and if a company made perfect code, poof, support dollars start to dissappear. Besides, most companies can't produce a marketing flyer that's error free, let alone made bug free code. Plus, when you build a complex app, how on earth can you imagine every possible user interaction that can go in to it? Given enough tries someone will figure out how to break it in some unimaginable way you never thought of because there's more of them using it and less of you testing it.
just my thoughts,
-s
Yes, you (and some of the other replies to my post) have some good points. I think what I was getting at though, was that based on the type of complaints being fielded here and other places they take the tone of "screw the media companies" and "they need to change" (which may be true), but very few suggest what is wrong with the current model besides that it "sucks" or it seems that everyone wants it all for free with no ads, which as I said and will say over and over again, is unrealistic (at least in the US).
I'm pretty much in the market economy camp. Which is to say that since the US is a market based system, then let the market drive it. I know these (and most) companies fight that because it's alot of work and money to change with the market (and the consumer). So legislating their niche is a better deal all around. I find that appalling and lacking in foresight. However, since it is a market economy we exist in, then those companies also have the option to defend their market model, even if goes against the grain of the consumer. Who will win? Well usually it's the market (and consumer) in the end, because we'll drive them to change, one way or another. If they stick to something that is losing popularity and therefore revenue, they will change to meet it.
What's unfortunate, as you point out, is that we (I mean a collective "we" not you specifically) the consumer accept "mind-numbing" material as the norm, thus punishing quality, which in turn (in my opinion) makes it so I want to skip the ads, which I do with my TiVo. In the end of this debate, it will probably boil down to one question; do enough of the consumers of TV care? because that will determine which side is successful, because it is we as the collective that choose to consume this stuff or not.
-s
>>That spying attempt is going to go down in history as one of the dumbest moves in the history of customer relations
Yes it will.
But, it's an advertisiers wet dream, and anyone is a fool to think that by plugging in that phone cord to the back of your TiVo or replay box you're just uploading what pay movies you bought, diagnostic data and getting the latest guide info.
It may be anonymous (or not), but they are watching what you watch. It's the Neilson Ratings, on steroids.
-s
No one wants ads (I don't)
No one wants to pay for programming (although we do anyway to some extent, cable, hbo, etc.)
No one wants adverts plugged in the background
and No one wants to pay for public tv
So where does that leave us? While I fundamentally agree that it is my choice to watch ads or not while at home, I also understand that economics and the free market play a role here. I cannot expect that someone is going to produce or air a TV show without getting anything in return for it. That's just not reasonable. Now if we don't want commercials, then we'd better start supporting our publicly funded media, because they're only ones who do that (and they're so underfunded they can't seem to get away from sponsors anyway). Otherwise, we're stuck with ads, because there is no other business model for media content except to sell ads (either in the program or between segments) or to sell the programming via subscription.
What further frustrates me, are the posts where people are declaring that these big media co's need to update their antiquated business model; To what, I ask? How should they update it? and where else are they going to get their revenue?
It's the same thing with the music industry. We like our nice sounding CD's and many people enjoy the big concerts and personalities developed and paid for by these entertainment co's, but everyone's complaining that they're trying to make a buck. Sheesh, people, do you realize how much it costs to pay the artists (who don't get enough from records anyway), make that nice sounding record, and put on a concert...
Now, I'm not saying that the media co's and their strong arm legal tatics don't reek of misconduct or that these companies don't need to adapt their methods for selling and capturing the marketplace somewhat, but I have to side with them in some ways because they are the ones getting that shaft at both ends financially (and don't give me that "they're so rich it doens't matter" crap, this is capitalism, not charity).
They have a right to be pissed that their ads are getting skipped, because what happens next is that advertisers start saying "well 30% of the viewers of your shows skipped our ad, so we want to 30% credit back" or in the future they force a cheaper rate. Which in turn impacts profits, which then forces the studio to limit what they make, thus impacting selection for the consumer. Or even worse, forcing production companies and studios out of business so that it then narrows who is producing content. Which as we all know would suck.
-s
I think it would come down to intent. Of course if copying is an essential step to using it, that is probably permitted under most EULA language, such as installation from CD-ROM to your hard drive in order to use the product. But if you were to go make a copy of the cdrom so your buddy could use it too, then that violates the EULA if the EULA says copying is prohibited, and it would have to be determined that your copying was under the intent to distribute, which is illegal. So I'm willing to take a guess that most sofwtare companies could care less if you cloned their cd-rom for a backup copy, as long as it stays in your possession and is only installed and used in accordance with the license your purchased.
I'm sure there are more technical terms for the legal pretenses that this falls under, but IANAL. But loose interpretations usually are judged on intent and reasonableness. So if you were to claim it was an "essential step" to copy that cd-rom and install it on your friends computer in addition to your in order for you to use the software, probably isn't gonna fly.
just my thoughts,
-s
I think the SMTP scanner you are talking about is called SMTP Scaner (sic). It's an Asian based site with some of the worst English I've seen in a while describing their products.
I get hits from "test@efunsoft.com" mail addresses all the time in Sendmail, which I figure are people with scanners looking for holes.
I'm about to start setting up reverse traps to mess with them, but so many are on dial-ups it's tough to do and be effective. I'm just blocking them now.
I miss the good ol days of finger and DNS hosts who's reverses actually worked.
-silversurf
I think it's important to realize a few things...
First off, in case you aren't from Seattle (or Washington State), or don't pay attention to local and state politics and economics here, you have to know that the State of Washington is panicking right now trying to figure out how to pay for a big budget short-fall. They don't want to raise taxes or cut programs. This isn't much different from many other states right now.
What's going on here however, is that the State level government is looking for tax revenue without raising general taxes on the people. Washington State is mostly democratic and most controlled by the west side of the state. This means that we have alot of taxes and alot of "programs" to support our urban areas and their social needs. I think *all* of the politicians (especially democrats) are too afraid to raise taxes for fear of voter backlash.
We had a referrendum here called I-747 that was passed by the voters but recently repealed by the State for various reasons (most of which were political), but it really pissed off all the politicians in the state because it said the State couldn't raise any tax more than 1% with out putting it to the people for a vote first. I think it also made them fear the voters a little bit. Hence why you will see things like this, the legislators looking for a way to gain revenue and protect their favorite programs without directly affecting the general public's pocketbook and vote.
Next, you have to look at the economy in our state. We have tons of little and some large software and web companies who develop here, but do not actually conduct the pressing, shipment or production of the software here. So for tax reasons, the State is looking at these and seeing dollars flying by that it wants a piece of. What's really interesting, is that companies like Amazon (I know they aren't software really) just have their corporate and web site operations here, but the actual shipping takes place elsewhere, probably mostly for logistics reasons, but I bet it's for tax reasons too. Starbucks is the same way, and so is Microsoft. But imagine the money the State would get if they taxed development. All those web companies would have to pay, as well as MSFT (who gets pretty big breaks for it's R&D work currently).
I wouldn't be surprised if this software "development" tax issue expands to include web development directly. Right now that is what many small companies produce as their sole product, but it's not taxed that way because it's currently considered a service. I see it as the State trying to keep up with the present, but still trying to apply a 20 year old tax model to a modern day industry.
The last thing to look at is the fact that Boeing just left and what it left behind is quickly starting to consolidate and dry up. So I think our politicians are now looking at the loss of tax revenue from Boeing manufacturing (which was HUGE here for many years) and they want something to replace that.
I tend to be on the more liberal side of the fence for politics, but I think we are currently faced with a bloated government in Washington State that is very ineffecient and needs to trim down. I also think because we sit in a very divided (almost 50/50 split) in the house and senate (Wa. State not fed) no one wants to, or maybe even can, cut taxes and programs when it's probably the best move right now given the current economic conditions in the state.
My wife, who is an economist and fairly conservative, calls Washington "tariff town". Just another example, there's tax on the boards right now to raise the gas tax by $0.07 a gallon. Currently it's $0.23 per gallon (not to mention local taxes). We need some relief, but dinging the software businesses is just going to drive them away. In the end it's probably a bad idea because fewer businesses = fewer jobs = less peronsal income = less tax revenue.
My $0.07 (per gallon) on the matter,
-s-
Seattle, WA
This is probably a dumb question, but it comes from my ignorance of Squid. How would Squid stop online ads or pop-ups? Especially if you're only a single use on a dial-up or DSL?
Just wondering...
-s
My wife, who is NOT a techie (far from it), loves our TiVo. In fact it was her who pushed me to get it. As geek, I do love it now, but was skeptical at first due to the added monthly cost.
But she found it easy to setup and get working. It has changed how we watch TV, I do find I watch more TV on a weekly basis, however, I don't on a daily basis. I record a bunch of stuff, then read the paper and watch it on Saturday AM.
I think more importantly as to why the market for PVR's isn't great is that they are expensive and they cost money every month (or one lump sum in the beginning). So Joe User, who already is looking at $30/mo min. cable bill then has to add $10 a month on to that (or $270 up front).
So in this economy, many potential customers of PVR's aren't out technology shopping for those extra luxury items (which a PVR really is). I admit at this point, it did cross my mind as to whether my budget could afford it right now in case things got tight. I'm guessing that's part of the problem for TiVO and others. I sure hope they keep it going, I do like their service.
-s
I submitted this story two weeks ago! It was rejected. Sure seems like I'm missing something, like why?
-s
Looks like TiVo and SONICBlue will go to war over this, it's gonna be interesting: Yahoo News with the story.
I just wonder what the outcome will be. TiVo claims they have patents that cover all the DVR functions, and SONICBlue claims they now have the DVR patents they need for the DVR functions. Each side claims licensing is going to give them a big revenue push. Just a guess, they are expecting the otherside to bow down and license the technology from them.
-s
Whoa relax, that post was meant as a little joke for those of us who have been around music and musicians. We all know some, smart and dumb, I was just having a little fun. I'm a guitarist too and sometimes dabble in other instruments, I was merely making fun of something of which I love. A bit of dry humor maybe, but not enough to get up in arms about.
/. moderation, maybe they thought I was making some serious point. No one is stereo-typing anyone (well, maybe the drummers, my drummer usually deserves it).
However, I do agree with you on the moderating part, I don't really understand the "insightful" part myself. "funny" at level 2 maybe, but not "insightful". My post was about as "insightful" as a cup of playdough.
I don't pretend to understand the ways of
-s
I wonder if ATI's All-In-Wonder and others will get swept up in this? Just a thought since there are several graphics card co's creating TV tuner and recording capabilities in to their cards and providing software for doing TiVo and Replay like functions (record and organize).
Just wondering how far SonicBlue will push the patents? I imagine we'll see TiVo and others reach some sort of license deal and eventually pass the cost on to us in the end, as it usually happens.
-s
What really gives me pause about this is that most musicians I know can barely figure out their effects pedals, let alone get their amps setup right; I don't know how they're going to deal with ethernet (and some of these guys are pretty accomplished).
I can see it now; the lead, rhythm and bass guitarists on stage battling for QoS priority on the switch.
Whatever you do don't let the drummers know about this, the last thing we need is networked drums. Drummers hog enough of the audio spectrum, stage and free beer as it is, we don't need them hogging bandwidth also.
I say this out of total love and respect for my musician friends of course.
-silversurf
There are some books that make wonderful movies, there are others that just...well...they don't make good movies for one reason or the other.
Dune had alot of potential. Lynch and his crew could have been the right fit, then again it proved otherwise didn't it? However I just can't see how a lower budget that TV requires can possibly do justice to this series. Dune is best left on pages, not on the screen.
The story is so inner-focused and delves quite deeply in to socialoligical, political, and religious subjects that a resonable length film version just hurts the story that was built in the minds eye by reading the book. The film maker has to cut corners somewhere, and has to make comprimises. Not everything can translate to screen from the page. Inner-dialog seems to be one of the hardest (judging by Hollywood's track record) and this is the backbone of the Dune books.
Sci-Fi channel will have to make this movie accesible to everyone, those who've read the story and those who haven't. I personally don't think they pulled off Dune that well and, although Children is more filmable than other books, I just see it being too much of a stretch to get done in a resonable amount of time and still keep the story intact, plus deliver a vivid and memorable visual experience that both the experienced reader of Dune series and the unitiated can appreciate.
Both Harry Potter (although not even the same league of course) and LoTR I think suffer (and will suffer) the same problem; legions of fans who have a distinct personal attachment to and "vision" of what the characters, scenery and meanings of various points and dialog are who come away from the screen version of the story dissapointed or not satisfied because of the limits that film imposes on certain stories.
I personally would love to have a big-budget Dune made again, especially using todays modern effects capabilities. I don't want it just for the effects, but Herbert's characters and his backdrops demand it. Not even considering the cinematic, plot and overall problems delivering a coherent story on screen, I'm afraid that the TV version can't deliver this how it should be done because they can't possibly justify spending the money to do the effects right. They just don't make enough off the advertising and product sales (DVD, etc.).
My humble $0.02 on the matter,
-s
Just wait until Qwest and SW Bell (and other telco's) get their new "adjusted pricing" for DSL out.
I'm sure they smell blood in the water and I bet their "operating costs" for DSL are going to magically go up as the cable world disintegrates. I mean why not? Their main competition could be gone in a matter of weeks and there's no clear alternative to DSL besides satellite, which is still not fully market tested and most users aren't aware of it yet.
Even though there are a bunch of different options for internet access, if you're a cable user and things do go dark, get ready to stand in a long line for getting DSL service.
fun.
-s
Never mind the virus scanners, I bet 99% (if not more) of all checksum utilities will see it (tripwire, et al) ;-)
How on earth can anyone (i.e. FBI) think they're going to get a trojan installed on a bad guys machine with out notice. Sure, some won't notice, but if I were doing bad things (disclaimer: I'm not!!) I would be really paranoid and doing regular MD5 scans of my file's checksums would be apart of that now that I know what they're up to.
Last time I checked, there is little one can do to circumvent a Tripwire checksum scan if the Tripwire database wasn't compromised.
just a thought...
-s