You can download the entire Wikipedia database. It weighs in at 15GB if you include all revisions, or 600MB with just the newest copy of everything. Have fun.
On PriceWatch, a good 20GB drive will cost less than a 512MB USB memory key.
It's really not worth the amount of effort you'd have to put into this machine. I realize it's old and you don't want to waste more money on it, but spending hours of research to save $65 isn't worth it, especially considering even after all that research your computer will be slower and more of a pain in the ass than if you just spent the money.
I have a 20GB iPod that is dead, because my friend pushed me into the pool while he was drunk/high and I had not emptied my pockets. This still isn't a good deal.
I could buy a Dell DJ for $200, get the $100 rebate, and sell the DJ on eBay for about $170, so I'd net $70.
Once I subtract that from the cost of my new 20GB iPod, the iPod would be $300 (I get an education discount).
I could also just send the iPod to Apple and get everything fixed for $250 flat fee.
If you have the $$ to buy eye tracking equipment, and the $$ the necessary software for that, you can probably afford the recognition software.
You seem to forget the 3. possible forgery, namely creating a fake eye. To create this fake eye, you just need a pretty detailed picture of the persons eye, and then you create the fake eye. Possibly using a normal technology as contactlinses. Thinking about it, i can not imagien that CIA and alike doesnt already have this technology.
But yet you think the CIA doesn't have the capability to send 100,000 requests to a website to brute force their password protection scheme? They could probably even send every single request from a separate IP address in order to fool any anti-brute-force mechanism.
Suppose that someone does manage to copy your iris and create a fake "eye". Suppose you know that someone has a copy of your iris. What then? how do you change your "password"? Rip out your eye?
Then you don't use your iris scan for matters of national security. But the number of people who get their eyes copied will probably be very low.
Something you know, a password or passphrase Something you have, a key, a usb drive Something you are, fingerprint or iris scan
Yes, a combination of factors is always most secure.
Personaly i dont believe in biometrical identification, i mean even the DNA testing in Gattaca was fooled.
But you can't fool DNA testing at present. If you could, you could make millions off of fathers who don't want people to find out it was their child.
Yeah, except if he had been running all those searches and paying for them, he would've paid by the hour or bought an unlimited LexisNexis subscription. Hell, he could've bought a college education and got a LexisNexis subscription free for the amount of money the NYT says he "stole."
If you can track someone's iris, then just use the iris scanner to authenticate. It's a lot simpler and a lot more secure than even the method described in the article, since about the only way to forge it would be to find someone with an identical iris (a much more difficult "brute force" attack than with the described system) or to rip out the person's eyeballs.
Come on guys. If you buy an iris scanner, make use of it.
The New York Times had an unlimited subscription to LexisNexis. They said that Lamo ran a certain amount of money's worth of LexisNexis subscriptions, but this was only if he had been paying by the search. To the New York Times, all this cost absolutely nothing.
The VST FireFly was based on the 1.8" 5GB drive (the one that was in the original iPod). It was also extremely tiny; however, it was limited in capacity, and eventually discontinued.
Everyone calls QuarkXPress "Quark," since it is by an order of magnitude the most popular product Quark makes. I've never heard anyone call InDesign or PageMaker "Adobe," because even in the context of desktop publishing, you can't tell which product is being referred to.
It doesn't say "labeled by Apple." It says "Apple-labeled." The phrasing is ambiguous.
What constitutes the hardware is also ambiguous. If you put a RAM chip that doesn't have an Apple logo on it into a Mac, are you violating the license? As long as the outside of it says Apple on it, it doesn't matter.
No, it doesn't say Apple hardware. It says Apple-LABELED hardware. You could stick your PC board in a Mac Classic. Hell, you could even just slap an Apple sticker on the side and it would be legal.
"Adobe" is not a program. Adobe is a company. Adobe makes three software products that deal with publishing:
1. FrameMaker, for technical manuals. Don't use this. 2. PageMaker, obsolete. Don't use this either, but it might be what your girl was using. 3. InDesign, Adobe's flagship publishing product. Probably the best out there. Definitely feels better than Quark to me.
Hyperthreading and dual core are very different things. A dual core processor is basically two processors put onto one die. There are twice the number of execution engines, just like two separate cores, but on the same chip. This means it's easier and cheaper to make and install than two separate processors, and it has approximately equal performance.
Hyperthreading takes one physical processor and makes it appear to be two logical processors. There's still only one core and one execution engine. It appears to be two processors, but a 3.2GHz Pentium with HT will have nowhere near the performance of 2 3.2GHz Pentiums without HT.
No, it's pretty much impossible to do this unless you plan to download all the files first which sort of defeats the purpose of the checksumming.
Not if the checksumming mechanism is built in the client.
Of course, what you would do is say the checksum of the file is the checksum of a real file, but then actually send a file which is just pops and scratches. I'm sure there's some way around this too, though.
- Firefox/Konqueror/Mozilla won't execute things without your knowledge, or even present a dialog asking you whether to execute something from a website.
- Most Linux apps are open source software. It's very hard to hide adware/spyware in open source software, because someone will find it eventually.
The other day, I actually searched Google for "doo doo doo doo doo doo doo" "i want" and somehow managed to find the song I was looking for (Semi-Charmed Life)...never doubt the power of Google.
Slashdot Mirror
You can download the entire Wikipedia database. It weighs in at 15GB if you include all revisions, or 600MB with just the newest copy of everything. Have fun.
On PriceWatch, a good 20GB drive will cost less than a 512MB USB memory key.
It's really not worth the amount of effort you'd have to put into this machine. I realize it's old and you don't want to waste more money on it, but spending hours of research to save $65 isn't worth it, especially considering even after all that research your computer will be slower and more of a pain in the ass than if you just spent the money.
AAC uses an MP4 container, so it pretty much has to be supported.
No, I'm getting him to pay for it, probably because I could really fuck him over. I just have to get it done as cheaply as possible.
I have a 20GB iPod that is dead, because my friend pushed me into the pool while he was drunk/high and I had not emptied my pockets. This still isn't a good deal.
I could buy a Dell DJ for $200, get the $100 rebate, and sell the DJ on eBay for about $170, so I'd net $70.
Once I subtract that from the cost of my new 20GB iPod, the iPod would be $300 (I get an education discount).
I could also just send the iPod to Apple and get everything fixed for $250 flat fee.
Now, which one do you think I'm going to pick?
You sure that was describing the particle and not the Slashdot effect?
Scanning is quite easy, but recognition is harder
If you have the $$ to buy eye tracking equipment, and the $$ the necessary software for that, you can probably afford the recognition software.
You seem to forget the 3. possible forgery, namely creating a fake eye. To create this fake eye, you just need a pretty detailed picture of the persons eye, and then you create the fake eye. Possibly using a normal technology as contactlinses. Thinking about it, i can not imagien that CIA and alike doesnt already have this technology.
But yet you think the CIA doesn't have the capability to send 100,000 requests to a website to brute force their password protection scheme? They could probably even send every single request from a separate IP address in order to fool any anti-brute-force mechanism.
Suppose that someone does manage to copy your iris and create a fake "eye". Suppose you know that someone has a copy of your iris. What then? how do you change your "password"? Rip out your eye?
Then you don't use your iris scan for matters of national security. But the number of people who get their eyes copied will probably be very low.
Something you know, a password or passphrase
Something you have, a key, a usb drive
Something you are, fingerprint or iris scan
Yes, a combination of factors is always most secure.
Personaly i dont believe in biometrical identification, i mean even the DNA testing in Gattaca was fooled.
But you can't fool DNA testing at present. If you could, you could make millions off of fathers who don't want people to find out it was their child.
Um, yes. That was the point. I would buy you a dictionary and a copy of Miss Manners, but I don't know your address.
Yeah, except if he had been running all those searches and paying for them, he would've paid by the hour or bought an unlimited LexisNexis subscription. Hell, he could've bought a college education and got a LexisNexis subscription free for the amount of money the NYT says he "stole."
If you can track someone's iris, then just use the iris scanner to authenticate. It's a lot simpler and a lot more secure than even the method described in the article, since about the only way to forge it would be to find someone with an identical iris (a much more difficult "brute force" attack than with the described system) or to rip out the person's eyeballs.
Come on guys. If you buy an iris scanner, make use of it.
The New York Times had an unlimited subscription to LexisNexis. They said that Lamo ran a certain amount of money's worth of LexisNexis subscriptions, but this was only if he had been paying by the search. To the New York Times, all this cost absolutely nothing.
Try get a JDK1.4 for Sparc Linux...
Available here.
Sorry, I nitpick.
The VST FireFly was based on the 1.8" 5GB drive (the one that was in the original iPod). It was also extremely tiny; however, it was limited in capacity, and eventually discontinued.
Everyone calls QuarkXPress "Quark," since it is by an order of magnitude the most popular product Quark makes. I've never heard anyone call InDesign or PageMaker "Adobe," because even in the context of desktop publishing, you can't tell which product is being referred to.
It doesn't say "labeled by Apple." It says "Apple-labeled." The phrasing is ambiguous.
What constitutes the hardware is also ambiguous. If you put a RAM chip that doesn't have an Apple logo on it into a Mac, are you violating the license? As long as the outside of it says Apple on it, it doesn't matter.
Microsoft didn't make its most popular game, Halo. That came with Bungie, whom they bought.
Let's be serious.
No, it doesn't say Apple hardware. It says Apple-LABELED hardware. You could stick your PC board in a Mac Classic. Hell, you could even just slap an Apple sticker on the side and it would be legal.
Aren't loopholes fun?
"Adobe" is not a program. Adobe is a company. Adobe makes three software products that deal with publishing:
1. FrameMaker, for technical manuals. Don't use this.
2. PageMaker, obsolete. Don't use this either, but it might be what your girl was using.
3. InDesign, Adobe's flagship publishing product. Probably the best out there. Definitely feels better than Quark to me.
Import it into another application (try Sound Studio), then save it as a 44.1 KHz AIFF (you might have to resample it first), and all will be fine.
The missing paragraph is contained in the Washington Post article. Read it.
A million golf balls would be 10 gigatons. A thousand would be 10 megatons. The original poster fucked this up.
Hyperthreading and dual core are very different things. A dual core processor is basically two processors put onto one die. There are twice the number of execution engines, just like two separate cores, but on the same chip. This means it's easier and cheaper to make and install than two separate processors, and it has approximately equal performance.
Hyperthreading takes one physical processor and makes it appear to be two logical processors. There's still only one core and one execution engine. It appears to be two processors, but a 3.2GHz Pentium with HT will have nowhere near the performance of 2 3.2GHz Pentiums without HT.
No, it's pretty much impossible to do this unless you plan to download all the files first which sort of defeats the purpose of the checksumming.
Not if the checksumming mechanism is built in the client.
Of course, what you would do is say the checksum of the file is the checksum of a real file, but then actually send a file which is just pops and scratches. I'm sure there's some way around this too, though.
Two things:
- Firefox/Konqueror/Mozilla won't execute things without your knowledge, or even present a dialog asking you whether to execute something from a website.
- Most Linux apps are open source software. It's very hard to hide adware/spyware in open source software, because someone will find it eventually.
The other day, I actually searched Google for "doo doo doo doo doo doo doo" "i want" and somehow managed to find the song I was looking for (Semi-Charmed Life)...never doubt the power of Google.