I'm guessing it's another archetypal story like The Flood myth.
So, look out every 5000 years. Or 26 million. Or 64 million, or however long it takes the Mayan calendar to roll over in 2012. But if it is 64, that lines up nicely with the extinction of the dinosaurs, and then we're doomed. Or just sit back and enjoy a good story. heh.
Boo. Surely some of the credit goes to Bud Shuster, former PA Representative. ("Former" due to some bribery or other scandal.) Who, as chair of the Transportation Committee, got more highway improvements for little hick towns on US 30 than for, say, Philly.
All ideas must be purchased from an approved content manufacturer. An imagination is a circumvention device and punishable by law. After all, if you think up your own entertainment, you're STEALING from The Company by robbing them of a sale.
All this and more in your coprorate sponsored dystopian future. Enjoy. You have no choice.
...the first microwave ethernet link in Manhattan instead (24GHz microwave between two ethernet bridges). Which worked fine and required no right-of-way...
...works fine. Aside from the occasional dropout from a pigeon flying into the beam...
In a worst case scenario, anti- company propaganda might be posted on the spoofing site, and it would deter people from visiting the "real" site in the future.
Yeah. Nice perspective on the issue. Far worse that someone doesn't believe the lies a company presents in its advertising than someone giving their password and credit card number to a scammer.
I haven't said it before, so I'll say it again for the first time:
Microsoft is probably the best / worst example of how business works anymore. There's a lot of handwaving and creative accounting saying "Lookie! Billions in profits and cash on hand!" covering up substantial liabilites that go unreported through quirks in the law. What, our employees hold $200B in stock options we'd have to pay if they asked? If we fuck something up, and the stock drops, and 1% of our workers decide to cash in and quit, and the stock drops that much more... Wowee, lookit that house of cards... but PAY NO ATTENTION TO THE MAN BEHIND THE CURTAIN. It's Rule No. 1 of "American" "Free" "Market" "Capitalism".
If you'd even read the entire page that you linked, you would have seen that while saying "Glass is a liquid." is wrong, simply saying "Glass is a solid." is also inaccurate. Even just taking the effort to scroll down to the conclusion:
Glasses are amorphous solids. There is a fundamental
structural divide between amorphous solids (including glasses) and crystalline solids. Structurally, glasses are similar to liquids, but that doesn't mean they are liquid. It is possible that the "glass is a liquid" urban legend originated with a misreading of a German treatise on glass thermodynamics.
Also (the key phrase being 'for practical purposes'):
[...] The viscosity of the supercooled melt continues to
increase as the temperature is reduced until a range of temperatures [around a point called Tg] is reached, below which the material is for most practical purposes a solid.
At the very least, recognize that because "Antique windowpanes are thicker at the bottom, because glass has flowed to the bottom over time." is an urban legend, does not necessarily mean that glass is absolutely an unchanging solid. Buried somewhere in my notes for a materials science class is a calculation of how much, in fact, a glass window would sag over 100 years. The result couldn't be measured with a micrometer, much less visible by the naked eye.
Finally, draining a pint of obsidian would be easy enough, if you could find something that wouldn't melt to drain it into while the obsidian was still lava. Ya know, like a lava flow? eh?
I give up. Any more "Informative" on Slashdot is about as "informative" as the local news.
The report that the BSA gave to our administration was filled with scary stories about other schools who tried to resist...
Seriously, why hasn't someone taken up these bozos on racketeering charges or something? And if your answer is that the bozos bought the government and it's too late, don't bother posting... Every story I hear about the BSA, including their own commercials sounds like something out of a gangster movie. Bleh. More IP doom stories. What a waste of time.:p
Just refer all these anti-linking morons to BT, the bastards claiming a patent on linking... and hope for something like a matter-antimatter collision. yes.
Yes, I remember VQF. I actually used it for a while, so I actually have some informed opinions on the matter. First off, VQF was cool, initially, until the novelty wore off, rather quickly, and I realized its horrible limitations. True, a 96 kbps VQF had comparable quality to a 128 kbps MP3. The problem is that 128 kbps MP3s blow goats, and VQF maxed out at 96 kbps. So the format was crippled by design, and there was nothing you could do about it, being proprietary along with all that entails. As soon as I found out about LAME, I never looked back. Never, that is, until I found out about OGG, though I'm waiting for 1.0, heh.:)
... in case I didn't make things clear, and to muddy things a bit more:;)
If you gave proof, I'd have to consider things further.
Then, if someone came up with a way to prevent abuse while preserving "legitimate" usefulness, then I nor anyone else would have an easy task of arguing against its implementation.
But that's the hard part: restricting the use of something that is just a tool to only allow it to be used for good, not evil. Finding a way to do that just seems to me to be something that can't be done. But you're welcome to try.:)
Box cutters are now restricted on airline flights, and no one is complaining about the restriction of their box cutter rights. This is much the same thing, not a proposal to do away with anonymizers, only restricting the circumstances where they can do harm.
(I'll get to this with the last part.)
As for proving a government run anonymizer would be effective, there is a catch 22 in effect. I can't prove what isn't being done.
Heh. Much the same as I can't reasonably be asked to defend actual use of the services when only possibilities are given. And seemingly any possibility at that.:)
I guess we will never convince one another, especially since you admit you don't care if proof can be offered that harm is being done.
That's not quite what I meant, although I proably sounded that way. More accurate would be: If you offered proof, then I'd have to give your point more consideration, but I doubt that such proof exists. (And not just some tangentially related, partially hypothetical proof either.)
That said, I've read over the whole thread again and concluded mainly that slashdot is a terrible place for any meaningful discussion.:) I can see your point about everyone overreacting and screaming about rights; All that seems to have overpowered what I think was your original point, so much so that I got a bit carried away with my original post.:) I think your point was something like: Americans are, by and large, ignorant, including those in power, so we can expect a backlash against technology in the name of protecting (the children, freedom, whatever); So we may have to be prepared to accept restrictions on some activities or risk losing many more altogether. If that was your meaning (I hope I got that close to being right), I can agree with most, even all of it. I think the main difference is that I'd like to think we don't have to give up just yet. And I think a lot of the other trolls^Wposters would agree with that if they hadn't felt the need to get your idea completely overblown and present their similarly exaggerated response in essay form.;)
eh. Peace out. I think I'm done here. I've spent far longer time on slashdot these past couple days than I'd have liked, but I don't think it's been a total waste.:)
If I go get concrete facts and statistics to prove my claim they are used in large part to support illegal activities, will you alter your stance?
Not likely, because that's only part of the issue. You'd also have to convince me that restricting it would have any actual effect. Arguably, everything's been "co-opted, by people using them for the wrong reasons." Most recently,- and dramatically, and tragically,- box cutters, but I doubt there's any rock-overturning going on in the commercial box-opening community. However, I don't think we'd even get that far, since I don't see how an anonymizing service would be much good for anyone plotting something. Anonymous means that noone knows who the other person is, including the alleged persons involved in illegal activities. So to use the service to any effect, they would have to have some other system in place to identify eachother, which renders the service pointless, or at the least not critical to the operation. Plus you've said, as far as I could tell, that you don't have a problem with encryption, which I can't make sense of in the context of your seemingly fanatical opposition to anonymity, for the same reasons and others I'd go into if I wasn't already barely making sense. Tired. If tomorrow I feel any more needs be said, I'll try to make this make a bit more sense. Or not.
Not one refutation that anonymizing services are routinely used to engage in illegal activities. Not one other suggestion of how to deal with this.
Not one bit of evidence that they are. I don't see the point in justifying myself further when you haven't said what "this" is that needs to be dealt with, apart from reactionary power grabs by unethical politicians using tragedy as an excuse to push their agenda, legislating things that haven't been shown to be relevant to the situation they claim to want to prevent or take revenge for. er, justice. That's what they call it.
Actually, I tend to stay away from civics classes and the like. Can't stand the stuff.:p
Well the flow of responses is as predicted, I expected this would be flamebait. ...less flamebait than ignorant troll. Regardless, I felt the need to respond to a few of your statements throughout this thread.
Starting with this post: The general consensus seems to be GOVERNMENT == BAD Personal rights to do anything electronically and have it hidden and undecipherable == GOOD
This country was founded on distrust of government. There was much debate over the ordering of the first few amendments, ie. the importance of unrestricted speech, etc. vs. right to bear arms - to allow the people to defend themselves against any entity, including their own government, if deemed necessary. The Bill of Rights has this distrust as a common theme, since its authors were fighting to escape government gone bad, and recognized that that is, unfortunately, what happens.
Related statements from two posts: Wake up. You people are not helping. If you want to hold onto reasonable rights, you have to offer reasonable, effective alternatives that still allow us stop and catch the bad guys.
I keep saying it over and over and no one responds. Will you give up anything to the government that will allow some reasonable means of assuring security? What are the alternatives?
Everyone else keeps saying it over and over, and you're just not paying attention. The liberties (which you refuse to even recognize) you're asking people to give up have not been shown to be a reasonable means of assuring security. Once that's been established, then the issue of giving up essential liberties can be addressed. I doubt that you could convince me that making encryption (or much else) illegal, or restricted so as to be useless, will deter the "bad guys" in the least.
More drivel, in case anyone missed it: Quit inventing rights that didn't exist 200 years ago, and then pretending we are turning into Nazis if we have to modify them.
One AC appropriately posted the 9th Amendment:
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
Basically, I think there's a crucial point here that you're missing. People have rights by default, governments (ours at least, as defined by the Constitution) do not. I'll try to make this simple: Anonymity- and anything else that's been brought up- is a right, because there's no reason for it not to be. Terrorists, Communists, or any other Boogeyman du jour are not now, never were, and never will be enough reason to trump that.
Crap, the sequel: I choose not to believe the US government is essentially evil. I choose to believe the US government has improved its stance on human rights in general, effectively and steadily over the last 200 years. I choose to believe there are truly evil men out there that would do America harm.
... and I choose to believe you're wrong, as I hope anyone else would too. The US government is not essentially evil, if you define its essentials to be the Constitution, Bill of Rights, Declaration of Independence, and other such things. There are evil men seeking to do the US harm, and they are those in our government that are opportunistically using the events of the 11th of September as an excuse to push their agenda of taking away the rights of the people and giving unnecessary and excessive rights to the government. Power corrupts. Hence the distrust of government in the Bill of Rights. Speaking of human rights, it may be interesting to read things like this instead of USA Today.
Bah. I probably had more to say that slipped my mind while writing this. Oh well. I think I got across the point that I strongly oppose any attempts to undermine what this country was founded on (not necessarily what it's become) and those who defend them. It's been said often enough, but it bears repeating: If the attacks were an attack on freedom, then restricting the rights of the people is the worst course of action as it represents an attack on freedom from within.
You're talking about the patch failing on Makefile, right? It's really a very minor problem, I've been editing it by hand. You just have to add the CRYPTO=crypto/crypto.o line and add crypto to the SUBDIRS. Running 2.4.8 now, mine looks like this:
I wish I could remember the crap I did to the DOS prompt when I found the ANSI stuff. It might still be written on a scrap of paper buried somewhere, but anyway. After playing around with colors and things, I think I left the text grey with a few things highlighted in white. I had the path, date, and time always on the last line of the screen. Pretty sure it didn't update unless ya did something, but pretty damn cool for the pile of shit that was DOS.:)
While not explicitly stated, those bytes ARE an integral part of the "decompressor" that was supplied (it can't work without them), and so including their size is consistent with the agreed upon rules, IMO.
IMO, too. Patrick said he wouldn't use "cheats" like saving information in command-line options, user input, or filenames:
It's probably also possible to meet the challenge with smaller file sizes by storing information in the filename of the compressed file or the decompressor, but I think most people would consider this to be cheating.
However, the number identifying each file and its place in relation to the others is *information*, stored in the filename, and is cheating by his own admission. He only gained one byte for each file by splitting it up as he did, and it would require at least one byte each to encode each file's position in the sequence. So he loses, as I see it. He fought the law (information theory) and the law won.;-)
Quite simply, what DeCSS does is read and de-encrypt the raw MPEG-2 data off of a DVD. From there, it is pretty straightforward to decode the MPEG-2 and re-encode at a lower bitrate using DivX -- and then it's the whole napster nightmare for the MPAA.
No, the sound and video is not in MPEG-2 format. It is in a raw uncompressed format. Remember that while MPEG is good compression there is a price to pay....
Sorry, the first guy had it (mostly) right. DVDs are MPEG-2 video and AC3 audio, which I think is a format owned by Dolby. Granted, it is a very high bitrate MPEG, but occasionally complaints of MPEG artifacts are heard. And every DVD player for Linux has stuff like mpeg2dec.c and ac3dec.c, so don't try to argue with me.;)
Windows file sharing is so fucking stupid -- why on earth would they set it up so the default share is "all users: full access"???
Whatever the default setting is really isn't important. From my experience helping friends with this and browsing random people's C drives on the network, the problem is that despite Microsoft's continuous touting of Windows' user-friendly interface, the file sharing properties is one of the less intuitive ones in the whole OS despite its criticality. In Win95 anyway, there's 3 options: RO, full access, and "depends on password", which then has 2 blanks. Time after time, people pick the last and enter a password for read access, leaving the full access password blank. (and some then go ahead and share their entire drive with R/W access. heh.) I don't even recall seeing a "Help" button in the box, confusing as this is for the "average Windows user". Basically, Microsoft fucked up, the weakness is exploited, and their users get screwed. Not like that hasn't happened before.
(And if that weren't enough, recently a bigger hole was found in Windows file sharing. Check around SecurityFocus. It's something like if you tell Windows to only check the first n characters of the password you give it, it will happily oblige. So modify your smbclient to brute force all 26 or so possible first characters of the password, and *boom*. or more accurately, *crack*. gah.)
Slashdot Mirror
Short version: go watch The Fifth Element. :)
I'm guessing it's another archetypal story like The Flood myth.
So, look out every 5000 years. Or 26 million. Or 64 million, or however long it takes the Mayan calendar to roll over in 2012. But if it is 64, that lines up nicely with the extinction of the dinosaurs, and then we're doomed. Or just sit back and enjoy a good story. heh.
So that's what those fireballs are. But don't worry. They'll be going. Real soon. :)
Damn I hope that's how it works out. TV becoming more like the web. Not the other way around.
Boo. Surely some of the credit goes to Bud Shuster, former PA Representative. ("Former" due to some bribery or other scandal.) Who, as chair of the Transportation Committee, got more highway improvements for little hick towns on US 30 than for, say, Philly.
Fuck politics.
All ideas must be purchased from an approved content manufacturer.
An imagination is a circumvention device and punishable by law.
After all, if you think up your own entertainment, you're STEALING from The Company by robbing them of a sale.
All this and more in your coprorate sponsored dystopian future. Enjoy. You have no choice.
Ok, so they're going to support this new platform. That's great, but:
Does "support" mean "put out a press release and then recompile all our packages once the kernel and gcc people do all the work"?
If they're not contributing this is just a bullshit attention-grabbing publicity stunt.
...the first microwave ethernet link in Manhattan instead (24GHz microwave between two ethernet bridges). Which worked fine and required no right-of-way...
...works fine. Aside from the occasional dropout from a pigeon flying into the beam...
zzzzt. crispy fries.
In a worst case scenario, anti- company propaganda might be posted on the spoofing site, and it would deter people from visiting the "real" site in the future.
Yeah. Nice perspective on the issue. Far worse that someone doesn't believe the lies a company presents in its advertising than someone giving their password and credit card number to a scammer.
I'd guess a big chunk of money goes to paying MS licensing / extortion fees. Plus getting raped by the phone company / upstream besides. :p
I haven't said it before, so I'll say it again for the first time:
Microsoft is probably the best / worst example of how business works anymore. There's a lot of handwaving and creative accounting saying "Lookie! Billions in profits and cash on hand!" covering up substantial liabilites that go unreported through quirks in the law. What, our employees hold $200B in stock options we'd have to pay if they asked? If we fuck something up, and the stock drops, and 1% of our workers decide to cash in and quit, and the stock drops that much more... Wowee, lookit that house of cards... but PAY NO ATTENTION TO THE MAN BEHIND THE CURTAIN. It's Rule No. 1 of "American" "Free" "Market" "Capitalism".
fuckit.
If you'd even read the entire page that you linked, you would have seen that while saying "Glass is a liquid." is wrong, simply saying "Glass is a solid." is also inaccurate. Even just taking the effort to scroll down to the conclusion:
Also (the key phrase being 'for practical purposes'):
At the very least, recognize that because "Antique windowpanes are thicker at the bottom, because glass has flowed to the bottom over time." is an urban legend, does not necessarily mean that glass is absolutely an unchanging solid. Buried somewhere in my notes for a materials science class is a calculation of how much, in fact, a glass window would sag over 100 years. The result couldn't be measured with a micrometer, much less visible by the naked eye.
Finally, draining a pint of obsidian would be easy enough, if you could find something that wouldn't melt to drain it into while the obsidian was still lava. Ya know, like a lava flow? eh?
I give up. Any more "Informative" on Slashdot is about as "informative" as the local news.
Share and share alike; else, write your own damn code.
heh. 10 words. really, what's so hard to understand?
The report that the BSA gave to our administration was filled with scary stories about other schools who tried to resist...
:p
Seriously, why hasn't someone taken up these bozos on racketeering charges or something? And if your answer is that the bozos bought the government and it's too late, don't bother posting... Every story I hear about the BSA, including their own commercials sounds like something out of a gangster movie.
Bleh. More IP doom stories. What a waste of time.
Just refer all these anti-linking morons to BT, the bastards claiming a patent on linking... and hope for something like a matter-antimatter collision. yes.
Yes, I remember VQF. I actually used it for a while, so I actually have some informed opinions on the matter. First off, VQF was cool, initially, until the novelty wore off, rather quickly, and I realized its horrible limitations. True, a 96 kbps VQF had comparable quality to a 128 kbps MP3. The problem is that 128 kbps MP3s blow goats, and VQF maxed out at 96 kbps. So the format was crippled by design, and there was nothing you could do about it, being proprietary along with all that entails. As soon as I found out about LAME, I never looked back. Never, that is, until I found out about OGG, though I'm waiting for 1.0, heh. :)
... in case I didn't make things clear, and to muddy things a bit more: ;)
:)
If you gave proof, I'd have to consider things further.
Then, if someone came up with a way to prevent abuse while preserving "legitimate" usefulness, then I nor anyone else would have an easy task of arguing against its implementation.
But that's the hard part: restricting the use of something that is just a tool to only allow it to be used for good, not evil. Finding a way to do that just seems to me to be something that can't be done. But you're welcome to try.
Box cutters are now restricted on airline flights, and no one is complaining about the restriction of their box cutter rights. This is much the same thing, not a proposal to do away with anonymizers, only restricting the circumstances where they can do harm.
:)
:) I can see your point about everyone overreacting and screaming about rights; All that seems to have overpowered what I think was your original point, so much so that I got a bit carried away with my original post. :) I think your point was something like: Americans are, by and large, ignorant, including those in power, so we can expect a backlash against technology in the name of protecting (the children, freedom, whatever); So we may have to be prepared to accept restrictions on some activities or risk losing many more altogether. ;)
:)
(I'll get to this with the last part.)
As for proving a government run anonymizer would be effective, there is a catch 22 in effect. I can't prove what isn't being done.
Heh. Much the same as I can't reasonably be asked to defend actual use of the services when only possibilities are given. And seemingly any possibility at that.
I guess we will never convince one another, especially since you admit you don't care if proof can be offered that harm is being done.
That's not quite what I meant, although I proably sounded that way. More accurate would be: If you offered proof, then I'd have to give your point more consideration, but I doubt that such proof exists. (And not just some tangentially related, partially hypothetical proof either.)
That said, I've read over the whole thread again and concluded mainly that slashdot is a terrible place for any meaningful discussion.
If that was your meaning (I hope I got that close to being right), I can agree with most, even all of it. I think the main difference is that I'd like to think we don't have to give up just yet. And I think a lot of the other trolls^Wposters would agree with that if they hadn't felt the need to get your idea completely overblown and present their similarly exaggerated response in essay form.
eh. Peace out. I think I'm done here. I've spent far longer time on slashdot these past couple days than I'd have liked, but I don't think it's been a total waste.
If I go get concrete facts and statistics to prove my claim they are used in large part to support illegal activities, will you alter your stance?
Not likely, because that's only part of the issue. You'd also have to convince me that restricting it would have any actual effect. Arguably, everything's been "co-opted, by people using them for the wrong reasons." Most recently,- and dramatically, and tragically,- box cutters, but I doubt there's any rock-overturning going on in the commercial box-opening community.
However, I don't think we'd even get that far, since I don't see how an anonymizing service would be much good for anyone plotting something. Anonymous means that noone knows who the other person is, including the alleged persons involved in illegal activities. So to use the service to any effect, they would have to have some other system in place to identify eachother, which renders the service pointless, or at the least not critical to the operation. Plus you've said, as far as I could tell, that you don't have a problem with encryption, which I can't make sense of in the context of your seemingly fanatical opposition to anonymity, for the same reasons and others I'd go into if I wasn't already barely making sense. Tired. If tomorrow I feel any more needs be said, I'll try to make this make a bit more sense. Or not.
Not one refutation that anonymizing services are routinely used to engage in illegal activities. Not one other suggestion of how to deal with this.
:p
Not one bit of evidence that they are. I don't see the point in justifying myself further when you haven't said what "this" is that needs to be dealt with, apart from reactionary power grabs by unethical politicians using tragedy as an excuse to push their agenda, legislating things that haven't been shown to be relevant to the situation they claim to want to prevent or take revenge for. er, justice. That's what they call it.
Actually, I tend to stay away from civics classes and the like. Can't stand the stuff.
Well the flow of responses is as predicted, I expected this would be flamebait.
...less flamebait than ignorant troll. Regardless, I felt the need to respond to a few of your statements throughout this thread.
Starting with this post:
The general consensus seems to be
GOVERNMENT == BAD
Personal rights to do anything electronically and have it hidden and undecipherable == GOOD
This country was founded on distrust of government. There was much debate over the ordering of the first few amendments, ie. the importance of unrestricted speech, etc. vs. right to bear arms - to allow the people to defend themselves against any entity, including their own government, if deemed necessary. The Bill of Rights has this distrust as a common theme, since its authors were fighting to escape government gone bad, and recognized that that is, unfortunately, what happens.
Related statements from two posts:
Wake up.
You people are not helping. If you want to hold onto reasonable rights, you have to offer reasonable, effective alternatives that still allow us stop and catch the bad guys.
I keep saying it over and over and no one responds. Will you give up anything to the government that will allow some reasonable means of assuring security? What are the alternatives?
Everyone else keeps saying it over and over, and you're just not paying attention. The liberties (which you refuse to even recognize) you're asking people to give up have not been shown to be a reasonable means of assuring security. Once that's been established, then the issue of giving up essential liberties can be addressed. I doubt that you could convince me that making encryption (or much else) illegal, or restricted so as to be useless, will deter the "bad guys" in the least.
More drivel, in case anyone missed it:
Quit inventing rights that didn't exist 200 years ago, and then pretending we are turning into Nazis if we have to modify them.
One AC appropriately posted the 9th Amendment:
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
Basically, I think there's a crucial point here that you're missing. People have rights by default, governments (ours at least, as defined by the Constitution) do not. I'll try to make this simple: Anonymity- and anything else that's been brought up- is a right, because there's no reason for it not to be. Terrorists, Communists, or any other Boogeyman du jour are not now, never were, and never will be enough reason to trump that.
Crap, the sequel:
I choose not to believe the US government is essentially evil. I choose to believe the US government has improved its stance on human rights in general, effectively and steadily over the last 200 years. I choose to believe there are truly evil men out there that would do America harm.
... and I choose to believe you're wrong, as I hope anyone else would too. The US government is not essentially evil, if you define its essentials to be the Constitution, Bill of Rights, Declaration of Independence, and other such things. There are evil men seeking to do the US harm, and they are those in our government that are opportunistically using the events of the 11th of September as an excuse to push their agenda of taking away the rights of the people and giving unnecessary and excessive rights to the government. Power corrupts. Hence the distrust of government in the Bill of Rights. Speaking of human rights, it may be interesting to read things like this instead of USA Today.
Bah. I probably had more to say that slipped my mind while writing this. Oh well. I think I got across the point that I strongly oppose any attempts to undermine what this country was founded on (not necessarily what it's become) and those who defend them. It's been said often enough, but it bears repeating: If the attacks were an attack on freedom, then restricting the rights of the people is the worst course of action as it represents an attack on freedom from within.
You're talking about the patch failing on Makefile, right? It's really a very minor problem, I've been editing it by hand. You just have to add the CRYPTO=crypto/crypto.o line and add crypto to the SUBDIRS. Running 2.4.8 now, mine looks like this:
CORE_FILES=ker nel/kernel.o mm/mm.o fs/fs.o ipc/ipc.o
NETWORKS =net/network.o
CRYPTO&n bsp;=crypto/crypto.o
LIBS&nbs p;=$(TOPDIR)/lib/lib.a
SUBDIRS& nbsp;=kernel drivers mm fs net ipc lib crypto
...hey guys? What the fuck happened to the <CODE> tag? This was a pain to type up. geez.
...AAAGGH!!! THE SPACES!!! I give up. Slash is fucking broken.
Ah, yes. Back in the day. :)
I wish I could remember the crap I did to the DOS prompt when I found the ANSI stuff. It might still be written on a scrap of paper buried somewhere, but anyway. After playing around with colors and things, I think I left the text grey with a few things highlighted in white. I had the path, date, and time always on the last line of the screen. Pretty sure it didn't update unless ya did something, but pretty damn cool for the pile of shit that was DOS. :)
While not explicitly stated, those bytes ARE an integral part of the "decompressor" that was supplied (it can't work without them), and so including their size is consistent with the agreed upon rules, IMO.
IMO, too. Patrick said he wouldn't use "cheats" like saving information in command-line options, user input, or filenames:
However, the number identifying each file and its place in relation to the others is *information*, stored in the filename, and is cheating by his own admission. He only gained one byte for each file by splitting it up as he did, and it would require at least one byte each to encode each file's position in the sequence. So he loses, as I see it. He fought the law (information theory) and the law won.
No, the sound and video is not in MPEG-2 format. It is in a raw uncompressed format. Remember that while MPEG is good compression there is a price to pay....
Sorry, the first guy had it (mostly) right. DVDs are MPEG-2 video and AC3 audio, which I think is a format owned by Dolby. Granted, it is a very high bitrate MPEG, but occasionally complaints of MPEG artifacts are heard. And every DVD player for Linux has stuff like mpeg2dec.c and ac3dec.c, so don't try to argue with me. ;)
Windows file sharing is so fucking stupid -- why on earth would they set it up so the default share is "all users: full access"???
Whatever the default setting is really isn't important. From my experience helping friends with this and browsing random people's C drives on the network, the problem is that despite Microsoft's continuous touting of Windows' user-friendly interface, the file sharing properties is one of the less intuitive ones in the whole OS despite its criticality. In Win95 anyway, there's 3 options: RO, full access, and "depends on password", which then has 2 blanks. Time after time, people pick the last and enter a password for read access, leaving the full access password blank. (and some then go ahead and share their entire drive with R/W access. heh.) I don't even recall seeing a "Help" button in the box, confusing as this is for the "average Windows user". Basically, Microsoft fucked up, the weakness is exploited, and their users get screwed. Not like that hasn't happened before.
(And if that weren't enough, recently a bigger hole was found in Windows file sharing. Check around SecurityFocus. It's something like if you tell Windows to only check the first n characters of the password you give it, it will happily oblige. So modify your smbclient to brute force all 26 or so possible first characters of the password, and *boom*. or more accurately, *crack*. gah.)