afterall the video has to be playable in some way, which means at some point the data becomes vulnerable to being copied, it's not like the player is going to create a SSH encrypted tunnel to your DRM enabled HDTV to pipe the signals in a secure encrypted environment.
if Microsoft has their way... what do you think Trusted Computing is all about? It won't be SSH exactly, of course, but an encrypted connection, absolutely. They've got a ways to go yet, but this is exactly what they're working toward.
Is this such a difficult concept? There used to be a web site that had an archive of TV commercials; I can't remember the name of it. Sadly the site was taken down a few years ago due to huge bandwidth costs, but it was quite popular at the time, and showed that there are definitely entertaining commercials out there, that people actually WANT to see. I believe users could vote on their favorite ads; a lot of them were VERY funny.
In theory, advertisements exist to inform consumers about products or services that they might be interesting in buying. I watch almost no TV; I've started watching about one to two hours a week lately. There are all kinds of things advertised on TV that I would be completely unaware of if I didn't watch TV, most of which I have no interest in buying, but some of which might appeal to me.
Consider: if I hadn't read about it online, I probably wouldn't know about the King Kong movie, which I would like to see. Most other movies, I don't read about online, so if I don't watch TV, I wouldn't know about them at all, and could miss out on something I would enjoy. Sure, I could actively go seek out a listing of current and upcoming movies, but I prefer this kind of advertising to be presented to me.
My only problem is that I don't want to be subjected to the same obnoxious ads repeatedly. I don't want to see car commercials, because I'm not in the market for a car and almost all car commercials (and absolutely all car dealership commercials) are annoying. I do enjoy some of the insurance ads I've seen recently though, even though I'm not in the market for insurance, because I find the commercials very amusing.
part 3 (working around lameness filter)
on
Pro Perl Debugging
·
· Score: 1
while (1) { u; $R = chr 1; ($S, $T) = select($R, $U, $V, 0.01); if ($S) { $Z = getc; } else { if ($e++ > 20) { $Z = ' '; $e = 0; } else { next; } } if ($Z eq 'k') { o; r 1; r 3 unless l; p; } if ($Z eq 'j') { o; $X--; $X++ unless l; p; } if ($Z eq 'l') { o; $X++; $X-- unless l; p; } if ($Z eq ' ') { o; $Y++; $Y-- unless $E = l(); p; goto g unless $E or c() | c() | c() | c() | c() | n(); } if ($Z eq 'q') { last; } } g: a 'a=0 m=' . ($B + 8) . ';0 '; system 'stty sane';
part 2 (working around lameness filter)
on
Pro Perl Debugging
·
· Score: 1
sub l; sub p; sub o; sub n; sub c; a 'm=0;0 a=0;37;40 c'; print "\n\n" . 4 x ' ' . ' ' x ($A - 4) . "perltris\n" . ' ' x 4 . '--' x $A . "\n" . (' ' x 3 . '|' . ' ' x ($A * 2) . "|\n") x $B . ' ' x 4 . '--' x $A . "\n"; n;
The code or the fact that you read it and understood it at plain site???
The code is obfuscated. It basically takes a really big string, and runs it through a couple of regex substitutions to turn it back into perl code, then eval's it. I replaced "eval" with "print", which made it output the code instead of executing it, then I used "perl -MO=Deparse" to clean it up. This gave a compilation error at ($X+$F=$A). Changing that to ($X+$F==$A) makes it compile... but Deparse optimized several whole subs away entirely, and I really don't care enough to figure out exactly what it's supposed to do.
Presumably he means a daemon that listens for incoming connections on a TCP port, and responds according to some protocol. And perl isn't nearly as slow as many people seem to think - it takes awhile to compile a large program, which happens at every runtime, but that shouldn't be a problem for a daemon.
You know, I saw the movie this weekend, and I had to squint to see anything like a "retelling of Jesus Christ".
As others have said, I have to assume that this is due to your poor understanding of the Bible. Most people, including those who claim to believe the Bible, don't actually understand what it says. The Lion, The Witch and The Wardrobe captures the idea quite well, I think.
I highly recommend this book if you're interested in clearing up your misconceptions about the Bible, and learning what it actually says.
Actually I was even shocked at the way the depicted Christmas (as being "the time when Santa Claus brings presents").
I thought that was weird too.
And the death / resurrection looked more like a ruse than like a sacrifice.
I didn't get that impression, but I can see how you could.
The Matrix" was probably more of a Christian allegory (and it was awful).
I thought it was a pretty good movie, but although you can draw a lot of parallels to Christianity, as an allegory it really doesn't track. My favorite idea from The Matrix is how the Oracle lied to Neo, telling him what he needed to hear at the time instead of the truth, since knowing the truth would have led him down a different path. I find this quite similar to the way God leads us down one path by making us believe a particular outcome is in store, only to reveal later that the real path he wants us on is something quite different, that we wouldn't have been able to get to if we hadn't followed the first path.
Also the "son of Adam" / "daughter of Eve" seems to come out of nowhere (like pretty much everything else in the movie).
Yeah, I never liked this. The rest of the book/movie is Christian allegory, so having an actual piece of Christianity in the story sort of ruins it.
I don't know about the books, but the movie was seriously lacking a backstory, as well as any reason to care about those people (what? they fight for control of an empty world?).
As others have pointed out, the backstory comes from "The Magician's Nephew" and other books, and the reason to care comes from the narration, which was omitted from the movie.
And let's not mention the fake snow. I especially loved the "but you look so cold!" when no one actually looked cold at any moment.
I found the lack of blood to be distracting - I understand they couldn't show any because they wanted a PG rating, but the cleanliness hindered my suspension of disbelief. Blood is specifically mentioned in the dialog, though, it's just not shown on screen.
The only thing good in that movie is the creatures (I'm usually not a fan of CGI, but this one was pretty good. The lion didn't look perfect, but quite believable).
Agreed, but as someone else mentioned, they should have been larger. In other books it is mentioned that the talking beasts are quite a bit larger than ordinary animals, and both exist in Narnia.
Yes, but the allegory runs molasses-thick. Aslan, the lion king, son of a "great emperor" from a "far off land", creator of Narnia, takes on the children's sins, dies in place of a traitor, and is reincarnated. He is sometimes spoken of as a "lamb". If that doesn't sound an awful lot like someone from Sunday School classes...
Agreed. I'm hoping this movie does well enough that they continue to make the rest of the series, which is much less painful.
The weird part was they barely talked to the lion yet they cried like crazy when he died. It just didn't seem like they knew him well enough to react like that.
Ah, you're right, that did seem odd. The book can explain their feelings without spending a lot of time on it, but in a movie that's hard to show, so it did look disproportionate.
If you're not already familiar with the Bible and its contents, then the allegory doesn't connect... and you should be able to enjoy the story on its own. The only Christian reference actually in the book/movie is that the humans are called "sons of Adam" and "daughters of Eve". The rest is just allegorical.
Am I the only one who thinks all these SFX specials are a bit overkill? I mean, do we really need to see the actors running around on a greenscreen set with various harness attached and such for every high-budget movie that comes out?
Have you read the book? How else do you propose they show a group of kids talking to a fawn and a pair of beavers?
I've heard it's made alot of money, but how does it hold up to the novels? I am sick of novels I love being destroyed by two-bit producers who can't invest the little time and energy it would take to do them right.
It's been awhile, so I'm not sure if they deviated from the book in any significant ways, but nothing jumped out at me. The lack of blood was a little conspicuous, but they wanted a PG rating and it's already quite violent.
Overall, I was very impressed, and I hope they make the rest of the series.
The clever bit is, the Seller (who is honest, intelligent and socially responsible) sets the auction expiry time far enough into the future to cause a race between the two.
eBay limits when you can set an auction to expire; I believe the maximum allowed is ten days.
Also note that an exploit Microsoft has already patched can still be dangerous, since most people don't update that often.
Just what the people in our government should be worrying about right now is ODF, who the hell cares what kind of documents they are using or are going to use. Regardless of your opinion on the subjects, there is the war in Iraq, Social Security, Health Care, Education, the Economy and about a dozen other topics that deserve some attention before anyone should be cusading for a new document format. I mean seriously, there are so many other more important issues on the table...
It hasn't occurred to you that switching to open standards such as ODF could save the government money, thus making more money available for all that other stuff you think is more important?
Besides, what do you propose that the Massachusetts State CIO do about health care?
Obvious, When you believe in Jesus (aka Aslan), you can kill without shedding blood ('cause Jesus/Aslan died for your sins).
I find your implication offensive.
By the way, in the movie they specifically mentioned bloodshed being a requirement to satisfy the witch's demands, they just didn't show it, because that would have gotten them a PG-13 rating.
This is more evident in the internet rumor that "the www you placed in the web browser before the sites name actualy means 666" While there is actualy no atual W (some translator include it) in the hebrew alphabet, It was explain to me that w and v are commonly interchanged when going form one alphabet to another and the v also stood for the number 6. Unlike modern/western numerical systems, hebrew uses/used something like roman numerals were 666 instead of meaining six hundred sixtysix, it actualy means the sum of 6+6+6 or 18.
Um... you really don't have the slightest idea what you're talking about, do you? The number 666 you're referring to is from Revelation 13:18, which was originally written in Greek, not Hebrew. There's a discrepancy between manuscripts; it looks like the Textus Receptus says "666" while Wescott-Hort says "six hundred sixty-six"; you can compare them here. I've found no indication that the original text was intended to mean any other numeric value. What it actually does mean, though, I have to say I don't know. It's definitely not www, though.
As for god himself guiding the translators, I know you are trying to be funny here but i'm not sure any reference to this exists in the actual bible.
Quite right - God inspired the authors of the original text (2 Timothy 3:16) but copies and translations are the works of man and are therefore not infallible. Personally I believe that the copies we have available today are not significantly different from the originals - there are minor discrepancies between manuscripts, but I don't believe the differences were accidental and not the result of anyone's agenda.
Translation is another issue. As has been pointed out, translating from 3000-yr-old Hebrew or 2000-yr-old Greek can't always be precise.
that, my friend, is the entire punchline. It is pointing out the ridiculous nature of the assumption that the earth was created in any timespan measured in thousands of years.
According to the Bible, the earth was created in a timespan measured in days - six of them, specifically. Of course this couldn't have happened through natural processes, so if you don't believe supernatural creation to be possible, then yeah, the whole thing doesn't work.
Slashdot Mirror
afterall the video has to be playable in some way, which means at some point the data becomes vulnerable to being copied, it's not like the player is going to create a SSH encrypted tunnel to your DRM enabled HDTV to pipe the signals in a secure encrypted environment.
if Microsoft has their way... what do you think Trusted Computing is all about? It won't be SSH exactly, of course, but an encrypted connection, absolutely. They've got a ways to go yet, but this is exactly what they're working toward.
Is this such a difficult concept? There used to be a web site that had an archive of TV commercials; I can't remember the name of it. Sadly the site was taken down a few years ago due to huge bandwidth costs, but it was quite popular at the time, and showed that there are definitely entertaining commercials out there, that people actually WANT to see. I believe users could vote on their favorite ads; a lot of them were VERY funny.
In theory, advertisements exist to inform consumers about products or services that they might be interesting in buying. I watch almost no TV; I've started watching about one to two hours a week lately. There are all kinds of things advertised on TV that I would be completely unaware of if I didn't watch TV, most of which I have no interest in buying, but some of which might appeal to me.
Consider: if I hadn't read about it online, I probably wouldn't know about the King Kong movie, which I would like to see. Most other movies, I don't read about online, so if I don't watch TV, I wouldn't know about them at all, and could miss out on something I would enjoy. Sure, I could actively go seek out a listing of current and upcoming movies, but I prefer this kind of advertising to be presented to me.
My only problem is that I don't want to be subjected to the same obnoxious ads repeatedly. I don't want to see car commercials, because I'm not in the market for a car and almost all car commercials (and absolutely all car dealership commercials) are annoying. I do enjoy some of the insurance ads I've seen recently though, even though I'm not in the market for insurance, because I find the commercials very amusing.
while (1) { ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ;
u
$R = chr 1;
($S, $T) = select($R, $U, $V, 0.01);
if ($S) {
$Z = getc;
}
else {
if ($e++ > 20) {
$Z = ' ';
$e = 0;
}
else {
next;
}
}
if ($Z eq 'k') {
o
r 1;
r 3 unless l
p
}
if ($Z eq 'j') {
o
$X--;
$X++ unless l
p
}
if ($Z eq 'l') {
o
$X++;
$X-- unless l
p
}
if ($Z eq ' ') {
o
$Y++;
$Y-- unless $E = l();
p
goto g unless $E or c() | c() | c() | c() | c() | n();
}
if ($Z eq 'q') {
last;
}
}
g: a 'a=0 m=' . ($B + 8) . ';0 ';
system 'stty sane';
sub l ; ; ; ; ; ;
sub p
sub o
sub n
sub c
a 'm=0;0 a=0;37;40 c';
print "\n\n" . 4 x ' ' . ' ' x ($A - 4) . "perltris\n" . ' ' x 4 . '--' x $A . "\n" . (' ' x 3 . '|' . ' ' x ($A * 2) . "|\n") x $B . ' ' x 4 . '--' x $A . "\n";
n
#!/usr/bin/perl
/, 'm _H c 2J a _m', 0); /, shift @_, 0)) { .. $B - 1) { .. $A - 1) { .. $Q - 1) { .. $O - 1) { .. $O - 1) { .. $Q - 1) {
$A = 15;
$B = 30;
select stdin;
$| = 1;
select stdout;
$| = 1;
system "stty -echo -icanon eol \cA";
foreach $C (split(/\s/, '010.010.010.010 77.77 022.020.020 330.030.030 440.044.000 055.550.000 666.060.000', 0)) {
$D = 0;
foreach $E (split(/\./, $C, 0)) {
$F = 0;
foreach $G (split(//, $E, 0)) {
$C[$P][$F++][$D] = $G;
}
++$D;
}
$J[$P] = $F;
$I[$P++] = $D;
}
(%L) = split(/
sub a {
foreach $K (split(/
($K, $L) = split(/=/, $K, 3);
$K = $L{$K};
$K =~ s/_/$L/;
printf "%c[$K", 27;
}
}
sub u {
a 'a=40';
foreach $D (0
foreach $F (0
$M = $G[$F][$D];
if ($R[$F][$D] != $M) {
$R[$F][$D] = $M;
a 'm=' . (5 + $D) . ';' . ($F * 2 + 5);
a 'a=' . (40 + $M) . ';' . (30 + $M);
print ' ' x 2;
}
}
}
a 'm=0;0 a=37;40';
}
sub r {
($N) = @_;
while ($N--) {
$Q = $W;
$W = $O = $H;
$H = $Q;
foreach $F (0
foreach $D (0
$Q[$F][$D] = $K[$F][$D];
}
}
foreach $F (0
foreach $D (0
$K[$F][$D] = $Q[$Q - $D - 1][$F];
}
}
}
}
I dont know which is scarier?
The code or the fact that you read it and understood it at plain site???
The code is obfuscated. It basically takes a really big string, and runs it through a couple of regex substitutions to turn it back into perl code, then eval's it. I replaced "eval" with "print", which made it output the code instead of executing it, then I used "perl -MO=Deparse" to clean it up. This gave a compilation error at ($X+$F=$A). Changing that to ($X+$F==$A) makes it compile... but Deparse optimized several whole subs away entirely, and I really don't care enough to figure out exactly what it's supposed to do.
And no, I'm not going to run it.
You accidentally used = instead of == in a conditional.
What? All perl code is perfectly readable! ;-)
What do you mean by "optimized down to nearly the size of machine code" though? I'm not sure what you're talking about.
Presumably he means a daemon that listens for incoming connections on a TCP port, and responds according to some protocol. And perl isn't nearly as slow as many people seem to think - it takes awhile to compile a large program, which happens at every runtime, but that shouldn't be a problem for a daemon.
You know, I saw the movie this weekend, and I had to squint to see anything like a "retelling of Jesus Christ".
As others have said, I have to assume that this is due to your poor understanding of the Bible. Most people, including those who claim to believe the Bible, don't actually understand what it says. The Lion, The Witch and The Wardrobe captures the idea quite well, I think.
I highly recommend this book if you're interested in clearing up your misconceptions about the Bible, and learning what it actually says.
Actually I was even shocked at the way the depicted Christmas (as being "the time when Santa Claus brings presents").
I thought that was weird too.
And the death / resurrection looked more like a ruse than like a sacrifice.
I didn't get that impression, but I can see how you could.
The Matrix" was probably more of a Christian allegory (and it was awful).
I thought it was a pretty good movie, but although you can draw a lot of parallels to Christianity, as an allegory it really doesn't track. My favorite idea from The Matrix is how the Oracle lied to Neo, telling him what he needed to hear at the time instead of the truth, since knowing the truth would have led him down a different path. I find this quite similar to the way God leads us down one path by making us believe a particular outcome is in store, only to reveal later that the real path he wants us on is something quite different, that we wouldn't have been able to get to if we hadn't followed the first path.
Also the "son of Adam" / "daughter of Eve" seems to come out of nowhere (like pretty much everything else in the movie).
Yeah, I never liked this. The rest of the book/movie is Christian allegory, so having an actual piece of Christianity in the story sort of ruins it.
I don't know about the books, but the movie was seriously lacking a backstory, as well as any reason to care about those people (what? they fight for control of an empty world?).
As others have pointed out, the backstory comes from "The Magician's Nephew" and other books, and the reason to care comes from the narration, which was omitted from the movie.
And let's not mention the fake snow. I especially loved the "but you look so cold!" when no one actually looked cold at any moment.
I found the lack of blood to be distracting - I understand they couldn't show any because they wanted a PG rating, but the cleanliness hindered my suspension of disbelief. Blood is specifically mentioned in the dialog, though, it's just not shown on screen.
The only thing good in that movie is the creatures (I'm usually not a fan of CGI, but this one was pretty good. The lion didn't look perfect, but quite believable).
Agreed, but as someone else mentioned, they should have been larger. In other books it is mentioned that the talking beasts are quite a bit larger than ordinary animals, and both exist in Narnia.
Yes, but the allegory runs molasses-thick. Aslan, the lion king, son of a "great emperor" from a "far off land", creator of Narnia, takes on the children's sins, dies in place of a traitor, and is reincarnated. He is sometimes spoken of as a "lamb". If that doesn't sound an awful lot like someone from Sunday School classes...
Agreed. I'm hoping this movie does well enough that they continue to make the rest of the series, which is much less painful.
The weird part was they barely talked to the lion yet they cried like crazy when he died. It just didn't seem like they knew him well enough to react like that.
Ah, you're right, that did seem odd. The book can explain their feelings without spending a lot of time on it, but in a movie that's hard to show, so it did look disproportionate.
If you're not already familiar with the Bible and its contents, then the allegory doesn't connect... and you should be able to enjoy the story on its own. The only Christian reference actually in the book/movie is that the humans are called "sons of Adam" and "daughters of Eve". The rest is just allegorical.
Is anyone else having these problems with these once great authors? Maybe I shouldn't care about their political viewpoints when I read their fiction?
I like the other Narnia books better than this one; I hope this movie does well enough that the others get made.
Am I the only one who thinks all these SFX specials are a bit overkill? I mean, do we really need to see the actors running around on a greenscreen set with various harness attached and such for every high-budget movie that comes out?
Have you read the book? How else do you propose they show a group of kids talking to a fawn and a pair of beavers?
I've heard it's made alot of money, but how does it hold up to the novels? I am sick of novels I love being destroyed by two-bit producers who can't invest the little time and energy it would take to do them right.
It's been awhile, so I'm not sure if they deviated from the book in any significant ways, but nothing jumped out at me. The lack of blood was a little conspicuous, but they wanted a PG rating and it's already quite violent.
Overall, I was very impressed, and I hope they make the rest of the series.
The clever bit is, the Seller (who is honest, intelligent and socially responsible) sets the auction expiry time far enough into the future to cause a race between the two.
eBay limits when you can set an auction to expire; I believe the maximum allowed is ten days.
Also note that an exploit Microsoft has already patched can still be dangerous, since most people don't update that often.
Just what the people in our government should be worrying about right now is ODF, who the hell cares what kind of documents they are using or are going to use. Regardless of your opinion on the subjects, there is the war in Iraq, Social Security, Health Care, Education, the Economy and about a dozen other topics that deserve some attention before anyone should be cusading for a new document format. I mean seriously, there are so many other more important issues on the table...
It hasn't occurred to you that switching to open standards such as ODF could save the government money, thus making more money available for all that other stuff you think is more important?
Besides, what do you propose that the Massachusetts State CIO do about health care?
Obvious, When you believe in Jesus (aka Aslan), you can kill without shedding blood ('cause Jesus/Aslan died for your sins).
I find your implication offensive.
By the way, in the movie they specifically mentioned bloodshed being a requirement to satisfy the witch's demands, they just didn't show it, because that would have gotten them a PG-13 rating.
This is more evident in the internet rumor that "the www you placed in the web browser before the sites name actualy means 666" While there is actualy no atual W (some translator include it) in the hebrew alphabet, It was explain to me that w and v are commonly interchanged when going form one alphabet to another and the v also stood for the number 6. Unlike modern/western numerical systems, hebrew uses/used something like roman numerals were 666 instead of meaining six hundred sixtysix, it actualy means the sum of 6+6+6 or 18.
Um... you really don't have the slightest idea what you're talking about, do you? The number 666 you're referring to is from Revelation 13:18, which was originally written in Greek, not Hebrew. There's a discrepancy between manuscripts; it looks like the Textus Receptus says "666" while Wescott-Hort says "six hundred sixty-six"; you can compare them here. I've found no indication that the original text was intended to mean any other numeric value. What it actually does mean, though, I have to say I don't know. It's definitely not www, though.
As for god himself guiding the translators, I know you are trying to be funny here but i'm not sure any reference to this exists in the actual bible.
Quite right - God inspired the authors of the original text (2 Timothy 3:16) but copies and translations are the works of man and are therefore not infallible. Personally I believe that the copies we have available today are not significantly different from the originals - there are minor discrepancies between manuscripts, but I don't believe the differences were accidental and not the result of anyone's agenda.
Translation is another issue. As has been pointed out, translating from 3000-yr-old Hebrew or 2000-yr-old Greek can't always be precise.
I saw The Lion, The Witch and The Wardrobe yesterday. It's quite violent, as it should be (though not bloody, I noticed). It's only rated PG.
that, my friend, is the entire punchline. It is pointing out the ridiculous nature of the assumption that the earth was created in any timespan measured in thousands of years.
According to the Bible, the earth was created in a timespan measured in days - six of them, specifically. Of course this couldn't have happened through natural processes, so if you don't believe supernatural creation to be possible, then yeah, the whole thing doesn't work.