I personally believe this to be a Good Thing(tm). IANAL, but wouldnt that mean if this case goes through and SCO lose, all other cases are null and void?
Additionally, Wattage can be expressed in three commonly used ways. Two of them are perverted for commercial reasons:
RMS : The "original" standard. This is the only one that really means anything to anyone, if you will. MPO : "Maximum Power Output". Basically works out MPO = RMS * 2 PMPO : "Peak Music Power Output". PMPO = MPO * 2
I like to think that a good rule of thumb is that if someone markets their product as xxPMPO then dont bother. Similarly with MPO. Although I havent bought any PC speakers (I use hifi seperates), so PC manufacturers may commonly use MPO. Beware!
As the parent noted, the actual "loudness" depends on the sensitivity of the speakers, cone impedance and a few other factors, so dont necessarily believe that higher wattage means higher volume
Ok, so im willing to give RealNetworks a chance. Heres my take on Helix.
I downloaded and installed the rpm with no problem.
Clicking Applications->Sound and Video shows an icon in the expected place (a lot of programs dont bother to put icons in the gnome/kde menu).
Clicking the icon brings up the Helix Player almost instantly. I must admit, it doesnt *look* like Real Player, which is definitely a Good Thing(tm).
The interface is clean.
Help->Contents doesnt work, neither does Help->Search or Help->Accelerators. (But who actually asks for help in linux eh?;))
Im kinda doubting that there is any spyware in the program, since the source code is available. But if someone else could shed some light on this, it'd of course be helpful.
So, jokes aside Helix Player works and works as i'd expect a music player to work. A *HUGE* improvement from the old Real bloatplayer.
More importantly though, on what conditions are the routines activated? How many false positives occur? This would be a royal pain in the ass if it said that [some picture im modifying] is an image of a note and it isnt
You will find that a lot of the trickier bugs can depend on certain [eg. race-] conditions. Such things that are very hard to recreate, even under carefully controlled situations. Then you get the heisen-bug variety etc. Such errors could easily be passed off as hardware failiure. Im sure you can dream up your own examples. (I cant; Im still drunk)
The current users will be able to upgrade, yes. But potential new users will not be able to join the service, and so the whole service could well become stagnant and start dieing. I think this was the desired outcome, and this side-effect was probably realised.
Im not entirely sure how they will manage to enforce this in the end.
Sure, you can block ports, but ports can be changed.
Sure, you can scan for certain protocols in use, but protocols can be masked by ssh and the like.
I think the main issue being missed here is that P2P is not inherantly illegal. A car could be deemed illegal, because you *can* run over and kill a person. But trying to illegalise all four-wheeled automotive transport is clearly madness. Well, for the moment anyway...
To be fair, the "average" user wont have any of these issues. I'll expand a little...
The average user will get Windows XP bundled with a new PC, so point #1 isnt always valid.
The average user can go years without even knowing (or possibly caring) that they have a virus on their computer. Additionally, most new PCs now come with some sort of Anti-virus program running out-of-box.
The average user will only care about the basic things. Turn PC on. Write some stuff in MS Word. Print. Maybe MSN Messenger to chat to friends, and Internet Explorer for browsing the web. These programs do just *work* if you're using them on a basic level. Most average users will not care that their Internet Explorer is a little slow to open web pages (painfully slow in my opinion though), and that Word has something-or-other badness.
The average user doesnt care about Microsoft per-se. A geek influence will, a lot of time, rub off as arrogance or unnecesary hate, although we all know better...
Again, Windows XP strives to get things to "just work". It hides all the complex things by default, which is something, to be fair, that Linux does not do. Not a bad thing in my mind, but for the avarage user it is unneccesary.
A lot of households have one family PC. They therefore care not about anything more complex than just clicking on the "connect to internet" icon.
I do agree though, that there are plenty of reasons for the average user to convert to Linux, and I believe it is inevitable for this to happen. The problem lies in that Windows XP is already on these users' systems, and for these users, Windows XP is perfectly acceptable.
There is also the problem of the Windows' "killer app" syndrome, where the reason people will not convert soley to Linux is this application. In my case, it is music-creation software.
When Linux becomes faster for things such as games etc, the hardcore games will convert to Linux. When Linux becomes much more productive for general office work, the business users will convert. It is at this kind of maturity that a lot of PC manufacturers will start shipping Linux with computers [as well as|instead of] Windows.
No, of course not. There is always going to be an inherant tolerance level.
In windows' case we (most sensible users) will rely on a properly configured firewall. Equally, in linux we rely on user seperation etc. It is impractical to think that a software code base will ever become perfect. This will just not happen with the current generation of IT equipment and programming languages.
Taking this stance is definitely a wise decision. If every user had a firewall, we wouldnt get any of these current breed of worms attacking open windows ports etc.
But of course, do we then rely on the firewall *too much*?
Before anyone rants about the article, take some time to understand the context it was written.
In certain circumstances, it makes sense. It will take away a lot of paperwork (registers etc), lighten the load for secretaries etc and make things that should have already been, automated.
There are *good* uses for this technology you know. Of course, there should always be some kind of opt-out policy
Im going to pick holes, because some of the things mentioned in the interview are frankly ludicrous:
It may seem like a big effort to write programs several times, but not if you do it in a modular way
The logic is there, but not the business thinking. Do you really think that many companies will write say three different versions of a piece of software for stability if they can concentrate the resources on one larger version with more functionality? Most users are more concerned with features, and have started to take rebooting as "part of using a computer".
You can't simply write a new, multimillion-line program in C and expect it to be reliable unless you're willing to work on it for 20 years.
This problem is NOT fixed to any programming language. ANY large project will have problems with maintanance unless it is held together with a good project management package.
Another reason spam is so bad is that so many companies use Microsoft Outlook for reading e-mail.
Arguably so, but this is not where the my rant lies...
Again, because that program is written in C, it's quite easy to design a virus to go through your e-mail address book and broadcast spam to all the people you know.
We can see that this bloke has a serious issue with C. Problems like this do NOT originate from the programming language. Is he really saying that if the program was made in Java, an executable attachment would not be able to run and iterate through the address book?
(As a sidenote, I believe that the majority of viruses are ONLY due to misinformed users. Dont open executable attachments and you're safe. Just like riding a car is potentially dangerous, as long as you know what you're doing you've got a large degree of safety)
If he is willing to disregard everything that has been done in C then it is him who is the problem. The majority of people *do* use C, and C does have its uses. automatic boundary checking and other niceties of Java is just too slow. Java has its uses, although I dont have that much experience in the language so maybe others can shed light on specific areas where Java excels.
You cant help but think that this guy's mind has been accustomed to using Java above all else. This is blatantly wrong. Java has its purposes, as do many other languages.
I hope this is seen as a warning to people who get too attached to one programming language/operating system/whatever rather than random abuse...
It looked good until I saw the filesize of the app. 7.5MB. Now, a lot of home users have fast computers but only have slow internet connections. A huge chunk of the potential market has already been lost because of the large filesize. Unfortunate, but true.
I think its a good idea. A bit like driving really - driving without a license is clearly dangerous, and so is using the net. A four year course is a little excessive though, but certain grades are a good idea. "user", "power users" etc.
To be honest, I think this technique is too complex for moving picture. In moderation I can see where it can be useful and where the effect would be enhanced by movement. One of the pictures indicate where the techniques goes waaaay overboard! This in a movie would confuse the hell outta the majority of people!
In all fairness, you can see where they are coming from - losing advertising space etc etc. But I would like to know how they can possibly prevent this? How can they tell a "authorised" MSN Messenger client from a properly-formed proprietory client
The problems of releasing an anti-worm on the Internet at large don't apply to smaller networks.
Unfortunately, you are wrong. It is still illegal.
In theory, this is a great idea. But you would still need each user's consent for "installation" of the "software" on a students' pc. Maybe it would be easier to buy a corporate Anti-Virus package and get students to install this instead?
This attack is not a "low bandwidth" attack as such. Yes, the bandwidth consumption *on average* is low, but this is because it comprises of intermittent high-stream data flows.
This type of attack wouldnt be suitable for anyone with a low-speed connection for people who are having ideas.
I would prefer to think of it as an optimised version of a standard DoS attack. Optimised by average bandwidth consumption, and to minimise attacker detection.
I think it would be cool to have a system where a device sends out all (or many) RFIDs to confuse a reciever. Another thought is that it could send out a bunch of random RFIDs thus (hopefully) protecting anonymity but keeping statistics useful?
A couple of the latest screens/icons look a lot like (RedHat) Linux. Not that thats a bad thing, I guess it goes to show that the Linux interface is just as good, if not better than a Microsoft one, but without the huge overhead of research costs
Slashdot Mirror
I personally believe this to be a Good Thing(tm). IANAL, but wouldnt that mean if this case goes through and SCO lose, all other cases are null and void?
Additionally, Wattage can be expressed in three commonly used ways. Two of them are perverted for commercial reasons:
RMS : The "original" standard. This is the only one that really means anything to anyone, if you will.
MPO : "Maximum Power Output". Basically works out MPO = RMS * 2
PMPO : "Peak Music Power Output". PMPO = MPO * 2
I like to think that a good rule of thumb is that if someone markets their product as xxPMPO then dont bother. Similarly with MPO. Although I havent bought any PC speakers (I use hifi seperates), so PC manufacturers may commonly use MPO. Beware!
As the parent noted, the actual "loudness" depends on the sensitivity of the speakers, cone impedance and a few other factors, so dont necessarily believe that higher wattage means higher volume
Pah, nothing! I live in the desert and use fire and smoke signals to communicate with my nearest "Internet Service Provider"
Ok, so im willing to give RealNetworks a chance. Heres my take on Helix.
;))
I downloaded and installed the rpm with no problem.
Clicking Applications->Sound and Video shows an icon in the expected place (a lot of programs dont bother to put icons in the gnome/kde menu).
Clicking the icon brings up the Helix Player almost instantly. I must admit, it doesnt *look* like Real Player, which is definitely a Good Thing(tm).
The interface is clean.
Help->Contents doesnt work, neither does Help->Search or Help->Accelerators. (But who actually asks for help in linux eh?
Im kinda doubting that there is any spyware in the program, since the source code is available. But if someone else could shed some light on this, it'd of course be helpful.
So, jokes aside Helix Player works and works as i'd expect a music player to work. A *HUGE* improvement from the old Real bloatplayer.
More importantly though, on what conditions are the routines activated? How many false positives occur? This would be a royal pain in the ass if it said that [some picture im modifying] is an image of a note and it isnt
"is anybody going to actually pick up the software and start making their own Cobalt clones?"
Im not sure, but im sure that someone will be hunting through the sauce, searching for exploitable code...
You will find that a lot of the trickier bugs can depend on certain [eg. race-] conditions. Such things that are very hard to recreate, even under carefully controlled situations. Then you get the heisen-bug variety etc. Such errors could easily be passed off as hardware failiure. Im sure you can dream up your own examples. (I cant; Im still drunk)
The current users will be able to upgrade, yes. But potential new users will not be able to join the service, and so the whole service could well become stagnant and start dieing. I think this was the desired outcome, and this side-effect was probably realised.
Im not entirely sure how they will manage to enforce this in the end.
Sure, you can block ports, but ports can be changed.
Sure, you can scan for certain protocols in use, but protocols can be masked by ssh and the like.
I think the main issue being missed here is that P2P is not inherantly illegal. A car could be deemed illegal, because you *can* run over and kill a person. But trying to illegalise all four-wheeled automotive transport is clearly madness. Well, for the moment anyway...
To be fair, the "average" user wont have any of these issues. I'll expand a little...
The average user will get Windows XP bundled with a new PC, so point #1 isnt always valid.
The average user can go years without even knowing (or possibly caring) that they have a virus on their computer. Additionally, most new PCs now come with some sort of Anti-virus program running out-of-box.
The average user will only care about the basic things. Turn PC on. Write some stuff in MS Word. Print. Maybe MSN Messenger to chat to friends, and Internet Explorer for browsing the web. These programs do just *work* if you're using them on a basic level. Most average users will not care that their Internet Explorer is a little slow to open web pages (painfully slow in my opinion though), and that Word has something-or-other badness.
The average user doesnt care about Microsoft per-se. A geek influence will, a lot of time, rub off as arrogance or unnecesary hate, although we all know better...
Again, Windows XP strives to get things to "just work". It hides all the complex things by default, which is something, to be fair, that Linux does not do. Not a bad thing in my mind, but for the avarage user it is unneccesary.
A lot of households have one family PC. They therefore care not about anything more complex than just clicking on the "connect to internet" icon.
I do agree though, that there are plenty of reasons for the average user to convert to Linux, and I believe it is inevitable for this to happen. The problem lies in that Windows XP is already on these users' systems, and for these users, Windows XP is perfectly acceptable.
There is also the problem of the Windows' "killer app" syndrome, where the reason people will not convert soley to Linux is this application. In my case, it is music-creation software.
When Linux becomes faster for things such as games etc, the hardcore games will convert to Linux. When Linux becomes much more productive for general office work, the business users will convert. It is at this kind of maturity that a lot of PC manufacturers will start shipping Linux with computers [as well as|instead of] Windows.
No, of course not. There is always going to be an inherant tolerance level.
In windows' case we (most sensible users) will rely on a properly configured firewall. Equally, in linux we rely on user seperation etc. It is impractical to think that a software code base will ever become perfect. This will just not happen with the current generation of IT equipment and programming languages.
Taking this stance is definitely a wise decision. If every user had a firewall, we wouldnt get any of these current breed of worms attacking open windows ports etc.
But of course, do we then rely on the firewall *too much*?
Before anyone rants about the article, take some time to understand the context it was written.
In certain circumstances, it makes sense. It will take away a lot of paperwork (registers etc), lighten the load for secretaries etc and make things that should have already been, automated.
There are *good* uses for this technology you know. Of course, there should always be some kind of opt-out policy
Im going to pick holes, because some of the things mentioned in the interview are frankly ludicrous:
It may seem like a big effort to write programs several times, but not if you do it in a modular way
The logic is there, but not the business thinking. Do you really think that many companies will write say three different versions of a piece of software for stability if they can concentrate the resources on one larger version with more functionality? Most users are more concerned with features, and have started to take rebooting as "part of using a computer".
You can't simply write a new, multimillion-line program in C and expect it to be reliable unless you're willing to work on it for 20 years.
This problem is NOT fixed to any programming language. ANY large project will have problems with maintanance unless it is held together with a good project management package.
Another reason spam is so bad is that so many companies use Microsoft Outlook for reading e-mail.
Arguably so, but this is not where the my rant lies...
Again, because that program is written in C, it's quite easy to design a virus to go through your e-mail address book and broadcast spam to all the people you know.
We can see that this bloke has a serious issue with C. Problems like this do NOT originate from the programming language. Is he really saying that if the program was made in Java, an executable attachment would not be able to run and iterate through the address book?
(As a sidenote, I believe that the majority of viruses are ONLY due to misinformed users. Dont open executable attachments and you're safe. Just like riding a car is potentially dangerous, as long as you know what you're doing you've got a large degree of safety)
If he is willing to disregard everything that has been done in C then it is him who is the problem. The majority of people *do* use C, and C does have its uses. automatic boundary checking and other niceties of Java is just too slow. Java has its uses, although I dont have that much experience in the language so maybe others can shed light on specific areas where Java excels.
You cant help but think that this guy's mind has been accustomed to using Java above all else. This is blatantly wrong. Java has its purposes, as do many other languages.
I hope this is seen as a warning to people who get too attached to one programming language/operating system/whatever rather than random abuse...
18 minutes of UHDV takes up 3.5 terabytes.
.bittorrent link handy then? ;)
Cool, whos got a
It looked good until I saw the filesize of the app. 7.5MB. Now, a lot of home users have fast computers but only have slow internet connections. A huge chunk of the potential market has already been lost because of the large filesize. Unfortunate, but true.
I think its a good idea. A bit like driving really - driving without a license is clearly dangerous, and so is using the net. A four year course is a little excessive though, but certain grades are a good idea. "user", "power users" etc.
To be honest, I think this technique is too complex for moving picture. In moderation I can see where it can be useful and where the effect would be enhanced by movement. One of the pictures indicate where the techniques goes waaaay overboard! This in a movie would confuse the hell outta the majority of people!
I guess, everything in moderation eh?
Suprisingly, the actual link to the website containing the movies has been left out!
;)
It would seem unfair to link straight to the movies, because the poor kid wont get his compensation money
"All of which begs the question, why not buy a motorbike?"
Why, because it wouldnt get on slashdot of course! Who wants to hear about someone riding a motorbike up a mountain?!
LaBrea - the "Sticky Tarpit". Seems like the same concept, and has a working, free implementation at http://labrea.sourceforge.net/
In all fairness, you can see where they are coming from - losing advertising space etc etc. But I would like to know how they can possibly prevent this? How can they tell a "authorised" MSN Messenger client from a properly-formed proprietory client
The problems of releasing an anti-worm on the Internet at large don't apply to smaller networks.
Unfortunately, you are wrong. It is still illegal.
In theory, this is a great idea. But you would still need each user's consent for "installation" of the "software" on a students' pc. Maybe it would be easier to buy a corporate Anti-Virus package and get students to install this instead?
This attack is not a "low bandwidth" attack as such. Yes, the bandwidth consumption *on average* is low, but this is because it comprises of intermittent high-stream data flows.
This type of attack wouldnt be suitable for anyone with a low-speed connection for people who are having ideas.
I would prefer to think of it as an optimised version of a standard DoS attack. Optimised by average bandwidth consumption, and to minimise attacker detection.
I think it would be cool to have a system where a device sends out all (or many) RFIDs to confuse a reciever.
Another thought is that it could send out a bunch of random RFIDs thus (hopefully) protecting anonymity but keeping statistics useful?
A couple of the latest screens/icons look a lot like (RedHat) Linux. Not that thats a bad thing, I guess it goes to show that the Linux interface is just as good, if not better than a Microsoft one, but without the huge overhead of research costs