Also for HD content the H.264 stuff is still going to be like 20 gigs or more. In mpeg2 form it would be massive and you'd have a hard time keeping up with the bitrates nessicary to play it even at LAN speeds. Also I am told that mpeg2 has several undesirable characteristics at very high resolution when it comes to quality and such.
One quibble: MPEG-2 HD content runs just fine on modern fast ethernet LANs. Better codecs do better, of course.
It does appear that the VP6 codec remains the EVD standard despite the unhappiness of On2.
And where did you get that information? AVS is the standard codec, AFAIK.
The intarweb, which is why I said "appears". Google for "EVD AVS VP6". Here's one site.
One message board poster said that EVD would be MPEG-2 only, which would be unfortunate. Another said that it would have 90 minutes of HD content (apparently lots of Chinese movies are 90 minutes long.)
The mythical "bridge" format already exists. With HD-DVD, you can master a HD-DVD disc and burn it to DVD+/-R(W)[-DL] if the final ISO is small enough to fit.
If it already exists, it's not mythical, is it? But HD-DVD isn't the bridge format; the bridge format is what will take us, past the failure of HD-DVD and Blu-Ray, to the mythical flash-based system that was referred to upthread.
They both have some of the benefits of Blu-Ray and HD-DVD without most of the drawbacks.
EVD has NO advantages over DVD. The codecs are inferior, and the disc format isn't any larger.
EVD supports 720p and 1080i, and it doesn't appear that EVD will use region encoding; both are advantages over DVD. It does appear that the VP6 codec remains the EVD standard despite the unhappiness of On2.
How? The method specifically mentions whitelisting
Oh, so should we have checked "whitelists suck"?
Yes, why wasn't that box checked? That's a legitimate criticism not mentioned by the article's authors. At least it's only high-volume mailing lists that would need to be whitelisted.
You don't have to trust them any more than you trust any other anti-spam service that provides data to your filtering algorithm.
Which is still too much. Blacklists can block things I'd rather have come through.
It was a trick statement: the amount that you have to trust other anti-spam services is zero. So, you don't have to trust the servers of the implementors of this new method at all; simply don't use it. More realistically, if you don't trust it, assign it a lower than usual percentage of your spam-detection algorithm and then see how well it correlates with actual spam.
"Atrocity" or "oppression" would better describe using weapons against peaceful protesters.
I'm not sure what better alternatives exist to this weapon. What is the best way to disperse a crowd of nonviolent people who don't want to disperse? (Assume for the sake of argument that you need to disperse them, for example to prevent a competing government faction from sending in troops with real guns.) A weapon that causes temporary pain is surely better, when you don't actually want to kill the targets, than a weapon that kills.
While I don't disagree that this would be great, it's quite far off. I, for one, don't want to be stuck with DVD until then.
EVD or FVD could be good transition technologies. They both have some of the benefits of Blu-Ray and HD-DVD without most of the drawbacks. The key, as always, will be content availability.
This form is for ideas that have been thought of before and have been discredited, but I'm not convinced yet that this idea wouldn't work. Here are the biggest objections you raised:
(x) Mailing lists and other legitimate email uses would be affected
How? The method specifically mentions whitelisting, and only mailing lists or other "legitimate uses" (can't think of any myself) that involve thousands of recipients would be noticed by the proposed algorithm.
(x) It is defenseless against brute force attacks
All the usual anti-DOS strategies would work perfectly well here. The same statistics used to identify patterns can identify junk data sent by spammers to confuse the system. The closest thing to a "brute force attack" that would work would be for a spammer to use a bigger botnet and have each node send messages at a rate low enough to not be noticed. That's a significant victory for the rest of us.
(x) It will stop spam for two weeks and then we'll be stuck with it
What other methods counter this approach, and what stops people from dropping it if/when it stops working? (Note that the article discusses four attacks, two of which count as a win for the good guys and two of which have viable counterattacks.)
(x) Why should we have to trust you and your servers?
You don't have to trust them any more than you trust any other anti-spam service that provides data to your filtering algorithm.
I don't claim that this method is good, but that the objections raised so far have not been very convincing.
I wasnt specifically talking about the world war 2 work.
You specifically mentioned that pioneering work over 60 years ago means that they have good employees today, and my position is that organizational effectiveness that long ago does not let one make accurate predictions about an organization today. Undoubtedly there are several organizations that did pioneering work long ago but have decayed into irrelevance in the years since. I suspect that GCHQ is not one of those organizations, but that's just a guess (I don't have access to their current work or the expertise to evaluate it.)
I understand the idiom, I just think it's incredibly stupid to keep sprouting it after the Bush administration has demonstrated that, apparently, we didn't know what 'evil' was.
I empathize; I feel that it's incredibly stupid to say "I could care less" when what one really means is "I couldn't care less" or "begs the question" when what one really means is "makes me wonder". But those are idioms too, where the words are not related to the meaning.
I am sure they have some very good staff being that they invented the idea of codebreaking using computers over 60 years ago.
That's not very sound reasoning. Those staff members have retired long ago, and organizations tend to decline in effectiveness over time. There may be reasons for believing that GCHQ has some very good staff, but the accomplishments of the organization during World War 2 are not among them.
In the context of American politics, "Choosing the lesser of two evils" is an idiom describing voting for a Republican or a Democrat that one doesn't like because voting for the "other" candidate (ignoring third parties entirely) would be worse. I don't believe that Kerry or Bush are actually evil. Misguided, yes; incorrect about a great many things, certainly. Malevolent? No. I don't think that either of them actually enjoys the suffering of innocents.
I never understood why so many slashdotters supported a man so unsuitable for the job as Badnarik.
It's his platform. Since he had no chance of actually winning, it doesn't matter how well he would do the job. If enough people vote for any third party candidate, maybe the major parties will embrace more of that candidate's platform in the next election.
Plus, it feels really good to not vote for the lesser of two evils.
I've never had the slightest problem with GPM cut'n'pasting between VTs (X not running). Just select (Highlight) in one VT, switch to anOther with the usual Alt-F# and paste.
Sorry, I'm being unclear. You have two physical VT220 terminals sitting on your desk, with two keyboards. They can be plugged into the same or different computers. How do you cut and paste from one to the other?
Personally, I find cut'n'paste in VT _easier_ than XTERMs, mostly because the mouse cursor is separate from the text-entry cursor. I just highlight what I want from one screen Alt-Fn to switch, then middle click to paste selection at text cursor. No need to reposition to pasting target. Minimum mousing.
How do you cut and paste from one VT to another? I've heard of software that enables cut and paste between different computers, but it's not as easy as the default capability that comes with the GUI software that I use.
I'm talking about designing complicated programs, proving algorithmic complexity, and optimizing for the range of applications from embedded to high-performance systems. A lot of that sounds like CS, and if they can prove it, a CS can be a PE (professional engineer).
Software Engineering is about software quality, which to some extent requires CS knowledge, but methodology and process are much more important. I'm convinced that there would be value to a Professional Software Engineer certification because I'm convinced that there is value to jumping through the hoops necessary to ensure quality in software, and there is value to educating employers and people in general about the difference between ad hoc development and the extra work necessary to ensure quality. Rumor has it that a P.E. who is told to cut corners has some leverage to say "No, because I'm legally liable for my mistakes." I'd be willing to accept some amount of legal liability for my mistakes in exchange for the power to say "No, I won't cut corners." On the flip side, cutting corners is often OK; it's central to the video game industry, for example.
Larger, crisper displays with less hardware overhead are fine, but my hardware overhead is long paid for, and I can probably fit more terminals on my virtual desktop than you can fit VTs on your physical desktop. I can also cut and paste between them. Egad, how could I forget cut and paste? Yet another thing that a GUI makes easier.
GUIs are great. They let you fit many xterms on the screen at the same time in a flexible, easily configurable, easily manageable way. Some fancy new GUI terminals even use tabs to fit multiple shells into the same number of pixels, and with virtual desktops/workspaces, you can group xterms according to task.
You are either misinformed or a liar. The nVidia Linux drivers support x86, x86-64, and IA-64 architectures. This is actually one more architecture than they support on Windows (no IA-64 for Windows systems).
Or simply imprecise. To rephrase your parent poster, "one of the problems is that the drivers support the x86, x86-64, and IA-64 architectures only." People on other architectures are out of luck.
The real problem with software engineering is that the vast majority of people writing software today simply do not have the intellectual discipline to undertake it.
Amen to that!!
I think most of them work for a company called Microsoft... which explains how C# came to be...
That's not actually true, which is one of the great conundrums of software engineering. For years Microsoft hired the best people, really smart people, good software engineers, and the result was Windows. I took a class once where the testing methodology of Windows NT was studied and praised; they had something like 1500 test engineers. Jinkies! What went wrong?
Slashdot Mirror
One quibble: MPEG-2 HD content runs just fine on modern fast ethernet LANs. Better codecs do better, of course.
The intarweb, which is why I said "appears". Google for "EVD AVS VP6". Here's one site.
One message board poster said that EVD would be MPEG-2 only, which would be unfortunate. Another said that it would have 90 minutes of HD content (apparently lots of Chinese movies are 90 minutes long.)
If it already exists, it's not mythical, is it? But HD-DVD isn't the bridge format; the bridge format is what will take us, past the failure of HD-DVD and Blu-Ray, to the mythical flash-based system that was referred to upthread.
EVD supports 720p and 1080i, and it doesn't appear that EVD will use region encoding; both are advantages over DVD. It does appear that the VP6 codec remains the EVD standard despite the unhappiness of On2.
Yeah, that's a significant flaw.
Yes, why wasn't that box checked? That's a legitimate criticism not mentioned by the article's authors. At least it's only high-volume mailing lists that would need to be whitelisted.
It was a trick statement: the amount that you have to trust other anti-spam services is zero. So, you don't have to trust the servers of the implementors of this new method at all; simply don't use it. More realistically, if you don't trust it, assign it a lower than usual percentage of your spam-detection algorithm and then see how well it correlates with actual spam.
"Atrocity" or "oppression" would better describe using weapons against peaceful protesters.
I'm not sure what better alternatives exist to this weapon. What is the best way to disperse a crowd of nonviolent people who don't want to disperse? (Assume for the sake of argument that you need to disperse them, for example to prevent a competing government faction from sending in troops with real guns.) A weapon that causes temporary pain is surely better, when you don't actually want to kill the targets, than a weapon that kills.
EVD or FVD could be good transition technologies. They both have some of the benefits of Blu-Ray and HD-DVD without most of the drawbacks. The key, as always, will be content availability.
This form is for ideas that have been thought of before and have been discredited, but I'm not convinced yet that this idea wouldn't work. Here are the biggest objections you raised:
How? The method specifically mentions whitelisting, and only mailing lists or other "legitimate uses" (can't think of any myself) that involve thousands of recipients would be noticed by the proposed algorithm.
All the usual anti-DOS strategies would work perfectly well here. The same statistics used to identify patterns can identify junk data sent by spammers to confuse the system. The closest thing to a "brute force attack" that would work would be for a spammer to use a bigger botnet and have each node send messages at a rate low enough to not be noticed. That's a significant victory for the rest of us.
What other methods counter this approach, and what stops people from dropping it if/when it stops working? (Note that the article discusses four attacks, two of which count as a win for the good guys and two of which have viable counterattacks.)
You don't have to trust them any more than you trust any other anti-spam service that provides data to your filtering algorithm.
I don't claim that this method is good, but that the objections raised so far have not been very convincing.
Watering down the word "torture" accomplishes nothing good. Any device can be used for torture; circumstances matter.
That begs the question, "How can we work a begs-the-question-misuse joke into this thread?"
You specifically mentioned that pioneering work over 60 years ago means that they have good employees today, and my position is that organizational effectiveness that long ago does not let one make accurate predictions about an organization today. Undoubtedly there are several organizations that did pioneering work long ago but have decayed into irrelevance in the years since. I suspect that GCHQ is not one of those organizations, but that's just a guess (I don't have access to their current work or the expertise to evaluate it.)
I empathize; I feel that it's incredibly stupid to say "I could care less" when what one really means is "I couldn't care less" or "begs the question" when what one really means is "makes me wonder". But those are idioms too, where the words are not related to the meaning.
That's not very sound reasoning. Those staff members have retired long ago, and organizations tend to decline in effectiveness over time. There may be reasons for believing that GCHQ has some very good staff, but the accomplishments of the organization during World War 2 are not among them.
In the context of American politics, "Choosing the lesser of two evils" is an idiom describing voting for a Republican or a Democrat that one doesn't like because voting for the "other" candidate (ignoring third parties entirely) would be worse. I don't believe that Kerry or Bush are actually evil. Misguided, yes; incorrect about a great many things, certainly. Malevolent? No. I don't think that either of them actually enjoys the suffering of innocents.
It's his platform. Since he had no chance of actually winning, it doesn't matter how well he would do the job. If enough people vote for any third party candidate, maybe the major parties will embrace more of that candidate's platform in the next election.
Plus, it feels really good to not vote for the lesser of two evils.
Sorry, I'm being unclear. You have two physical VT220 terminals sitting on your desk, with two keyboards. They can be plugged into the same or different computers. How do you cut and paste from one to the other?
How do you cut and paste from one VT to another? I've heard of software that enables cut and paste between different computers, but it's not as easy as the default capability that comes with the GUI software that I use.
That's why I have a big, nice display.
That's why I said "makes it easier" not "makes it possible". Cutting and pasting between different physical terminals is not as easy.
Software Engineering is about software quality, which to some extent requires CS knowledge, but methodology and process are much more important. I'm convinced that there would be value to a Professional Software Engineer certification because I'm convinced that there is value to jumping through the hoops necessary to ensure quality in software, and there is value to educating employers and people in general about the difference between ad hoc development and the extra work necessary to ensure quality. Rumor has it that a P.E. who is told to cut corners has some leverage to say "No, because I'm legally liable for my mistakes." I'd be willing to accept some amount of legal liability for my mistakes in exchange for the power to say "No, I won't cut corners." On the flip side, cutting corners is often OK; it's central to the video game industry, for example.
Larger, crisper displays with less hardware overhead are fine, but my hardware overhead is long paid for, and I can probably fit more terminals on my virtual desktop than you can fit VTs on your physical desktop. I can also cut and paste between them. Egad, how could I forget cut and paste? Yet another thing that a GUI makes easier.
Courts have ruled "for the children" to be a subset of "interstate commerce".
GUIs are great. They let you fit many xterms on the screen at the same time in a flexible, easily configurable, easily manageable way. Some fancy new GUI terminals even use tabs to fit multiple shells into the same number of pixels, and with virtual desktops/workspaces, you can group xterms according to task.
Or simply imprecise. To rephrase your parent poster, "one of the problems is that the drivers support the x86, x86-64, and IA-64 architectures only." People on other architectures are out of luck.
That's not actually true, which is one of the great conundrums of software engineering. For years Microsoft hired the best people, really smart people, good software engineers, and the result was Windows. I took a class once where the testing methodology of Windows NT was studied and praised; they had something like 1500 test engineers. Jinkies! What went wrong?
Security. Within a walled garden it's great, but out on the wild woolly internet it's safest to disable by default or run within a virtual machine.