But P2P applications aren't used solely for music. How would the scanner know that this wasn't some file format it's not familiar with? On a general P2P network, it wouldn't be able to blindly reject unknown formats.
Compress it (tar, zip), and once they get wise to that, there would be a million little utilities that could be written to move the bits around in the file, like reversing, or doing some sort of shuffle.
The problem then becomes a matter of distributing these utilities. I know, P2P!
I know this might be a shock for you Linux users, but it's time to move on: Files are no longer files as we know them.
Why? Because using normal files is just too slow. E.g. How do we know which part of a 1gb file should lie in memory, and which should not?
Actually, for interactive cases this is easier on Linux/Unix than on Windows because of the structure of the *nix inode. It allows for very easy random access of a file, so, like the other example, you can scroll randomly about your 1 gig file in vim without much worry.
NTFS, FAT, and FAT32, on the other hand, are good for sequential access (great if you're copying one file to another, I suppose), but it's more difficult to page the file in memory, which, also aforementioned, is not the duty of the filesystem.
I can see them doing this to overcome Bayesian filters, but why? AFAIK, Bayesian filters are not used much (if at all) on mail servers. These filters are run at home by geeks.
Granted, this may get them past the filters, but if somebody's gone through the effort of setting up a Bayesian filter, they're not going to buy your product even if you get into their inbox. It seems like a waste of everybody's effort, and I mean including the spammers.
I don't think anybody was saying that Indians aren't innovative. I think that the problem arises when the camp is divided across the world, just as it would be hard for an Indian company to be innovative when most of their workforce is in the United States. It's a huge communication gap.
It annoys me that Linux developers try to
compete with commercial companies. Listen: you are destroying bussiness!
Competition spurs innovation. Many open source developers are actually employed! They are paid by corporations to develop these open source applications, from which the company, perhaps indirectly, makes profit. IBM employes people to work on Linux, which is uses on servers it sells. Torvalds, and many other open source developers, are hired by the Open Source Development Lab, which provides services for many commercial companies.
Sun will probably be the first casualty. With no commercial companies left, there will be no innovation.
Sun is a major supporter of OpenOffice. In fact, it's an integral part of StarOffice, Sun's own office product. They certainly aren't against OpenOffice, which you later assert is the downfall of innovation.
I propose the following "constitution" for open source developers:
1) I will freely license my code for use in commercial products (ie, use BSD license not GPL.)
Thanks for spelling out what I can do with my code. I was afraid of all of the freedom I had.
2) If a commercial equivalent exists for what I'm developing, I will not try to market it as a replacement for the commercial product.
Yes, as aforementioned, competition is most certainly a bad thing for innovation.
3) My software will not be targeted at the average consumer (read: no easy to use UI, no easy installation process).
Of course, I'd hate for my software to be easy to use!
So basically, you can develop research software, specialized software, etc.
Phew! Again, thanks for letting me decide.
But please, if no-one buys MS Office and d/ls openoffice instead, innovation in word processors and spreadsheets will stop. We do not want this.
Yes, it's true, Microsoft is the cornerstone of all innovation. I'd be a shame for MS to stop bloating their software to entice customers to buy a new version. If there were no competition from OpenSource, don't you think MS would be a lot more stagnent than it is now?
But then again, this isn't anything new in the music world; people have been altering pitch in the studio for years, even before "autotune".
This is true. The version of the Beatles "Strawberry Fields Forever" that everybody knows is actually a splice of two different takes. One of the take's tempo was faster than the other, so they had to slow one down and then adjust the pitch to make the two takes line up. This has nothing to do with Lennon's vocal performance, but it just goes to show that pitch adjustment has been happening since at least the 60s.
Re:These spam laws are a waste of time
on
Spam, Milord
·
· Score: 1
Brought to you by the public campaign against advertising.
You'd think they would run some kind of fuzz test to catch bugs like this. Paste together random strings of plausible-looking HTML (perhaps taken from real web pages) until one of them crashes the browser.
I hope your joking, because this is just unfeasible, as there are an infinite number of these random strings, and probably very few which cause problems.
Really, the guy who designs electric chairs and lethal injection systems.
rootkit redundant.
on
Windows Rootkits
·
· Score: 5, Interesting
Well, as most Windows users run their boxes as Administrator anyway, a rootkit can almost be any program that's run with malicious intent.
I too, in the rarity that it's on, run my Windows box as Administrator because, unlike *nix, there's no easy way to become Admin (root) when you need to. You have to logout and log back in, unless they've changed it in recent releases.
You're not missing much. The article is poorly written and offers little insight to those who are (like me) unfamiliar with Windows XP. All of his examples come from how it's changed compared to XP.
You both seem to be thinking that "real-time" means "fast" when in fact it means that the time constraints are specified with regard to the outside world (thus the phrase "real time"). It doesn't matter if we're talking eons or fempto-secconds, as long as we define success or failure in terms of real world, physical time instead of some internal metric such as processor time.
I never mentioned fast. You seem to be missing the underlying definition of a real-time system. If you know of a payroll system that runs on a real-time operating system, I would love to hear about it. It would pretty much mean that the only thing that operating system is used for is payroll.
Real-time systems are about priority. A real-time system, hard or soft, will run real-time application without context switches until that process is complete. No system would ever run a payroll system without context switches, it just doesn't make sense to do so.
We're not talking about human deadlines as time constaints. We're talking about real-time operating systems.
Taken from Operating System Concepts by Silberschatz, Galvin, and Gagne, "A real-time system is used when rigid time requirements have been placed on the operation of a processor or the flow of data; thus, it is often used as a control device in a dedicated application."
"A real-time system has well-defined, fixed time constraints. Processing must be done within the defined constraints, or the system will fail. For instance, it would not do for a robot arm to be instructed to halt after it had smashed into a car it was building."
Look at this as saying that the process must be given CPU time to insure that it completes within its time constraint. This is not the case for the payroll system. The payroll system does not require all of a CPU's attention. While you may have to get payroll in by Friday, it's not a rigid time contraint. Anytime on Friday will do just fine.
Some examples of real-time systems that they list are systems the control scientific experiements, medical imaging systems, industrial control systems... .
Slashdot Mirror
But P2P applications aren't used solely for music. How would the scanner know that this wasn't some file format it's not familiar with? On a general P2P network, it wouldn't be able to blindly reject unknown formats.
Compress it (tar, zip), and once they get wise to that, there would be a million little utilities that could be written to move the bits around in the file, like reversing, or doing some sort of shuffle.
The problem then becomes a matter of distributing these utilities. I know, P2P!
Why? Because using normal files is just too slow. E.g. How do we know which part of a 1gb file should lie in memory, and which should not?
Actually, for interactive cases this is easier on Linux/Unix than on Windows because of the structure of the *nix inode. It allows for very easy random access of a file, so, like the other example, you can scroll randomly about your 1 gig file in vim without much worry. NTFS, FAT, and FAT32, on the other hand, are good for sequential access (great if you're copying one file to another, I suppose), but it's more difficult to page the file in memory, which, also aforementioned, is not the duty of the filesystem.
The anonymous coward isn't embarrassed to admit he works for SCO. Got it.
I can see them doing this to overcome Bayesian filters, but why? AFAIK, Bayesian filters are not used much (if at all) on mail servers. These filters are run at home by geeks.
Granted, this may get them past the filters, but if somebody's gone through the effort of setting up a Bayesian filter, they're not going to buy your product even if you get into their inbox. It seems like a waste of everybody's effort, and I mean including the spammers.
Misconception 2 - Indians are not innovative.
I don't think anybody was saying that Indians aren't innovative. I think that the problem arises when the camp is divided across the world, just as it would be hard for an Indian company to be innovative when most of their workforce is in the United States. It's a huge communication gap.
It annoys me that Linux developers try to compete with commercial companies. Listen: you are destroying bussiness!
Competition spurs innovation. Many open source developers are actually employed! They are paid by corporations to develop these open source applications, from which the company, perhaps indirectly, makes profit. IBM employes people to work on Linux, which is uses on servers it sells. Torvalds, and many other open source developers, are hired by the Open Source Development Lab, which provides services for many commercial companies.
Sun will probably be the first casualty. With no commercial companies left, there will be no innovation.
Sun is a major supporter of OpenOffice. In fact, it's an integral part of StarOffice, Sun's own office product. They certainly aren't against OpenOffice, which you later assert is the downfall of innovation.
I propose the following "constitution" for open source developers:
1) I will freely license my code for use in commercial products (ie, use BSD license not GPL.)
Thanks for spelling out what I can do with my code. I was afraid of all of the freedom I had.
2) If a commercial equivalent exists for what I'm developing, I will not try to market it as a replacement for the commercial product.
Yes, as aforementioned, competition is most certainly a bad thing for innovation.
3) My software will not be targeted at the average consumer (read: no easy to use UI, no easy installation process).
Of course, I'd hate for my software to be easy to use!
So basically, you can develop research software, specialized software, etc.
Phew! Again, thanks for letting me decide.
But please, if no-one buys MS Office and d/ls openoffice instead, innovation in word processors and spreadsheets will stop. We do not want this.
Yes, it's true, Microsoft is the cornerstone of all innovation. I'd be a shame for MS to stop bloating their software to entice customers to buy a new version. If there were no competition from OpenSource, don't you think MS would be a lot more stagnent than it is now?
Nixon would have been impeached, but he resigned.
Clinton didn't resign because he knew the case against him didn't hold water.
While this post is off-topic, your off-topic post is wrong. It depends on the language.
Icon, for example, gives unassigned variables a null value.
In the CNN article I read they said they were fighting it based on first amendment. The right to free speech doesn't guarantee you an audience.
Your rights end when they start intruding on other people's rights.
Don't I have to right to block people from calling me if I don't want them to?
Let's compromise. The numbers 100 and 111.
But then again, this isn't anything new in the music world; people have been altering pitch in the studio for years, even before "autotune".
This is true. The version of the Beatles "Strawberry Fields Forever" that everybody knows is actually a splice of two different takes. One of the take's tempo was faster than the other, so they had to slow one down and then adjust the pitch to make the two takes line up. This has nothing to do with Lennon's vocal performance, but it just goes to show that pitch adjustment has been happening since at least the 60s.
Brought to you by the public campaign against advertising.
Your CS department has girls? What's that like?
You'd think they would run some kind of fuzz test to catch bugs like this. Paste together random strings of plausible-looking HTML (perhaps taken from real web pages) until one of them crashes the browser.
I hope your joking, because this is just unfeasible, as there are an infinite number of these random strings, and probably very few which cause problems.
Why not just name it Feenicks in that case?
Slashdot should get some of the income! If they keep doing stuff like that, we can get rid of the adds!
How long will it be before this hardware becomes affordable?
The real question is, how much longer until my eBay scam pays off and I can afford one no matter what the price.
Even if I do have to move suddenly to Vermont.
The meaning of Profeesional Engineer in Texas
Really, the guy who designs electric chairs and lethal injection systems.
Well, as most Windows users run their boxes as Administrator anyway, a rootkit can almost be any program that's run with malicious intent.
I too, in the rarity that it's on, run my Windows box as Administrator because, unlike *nix, there's no easy way to become Admin (root) when you need to. You have to logout and log back in, unless they've changed it in recent releases.
You're not missing much. The article is poorly written and offers little insight to those who are (like me) unfamiliar with Windows XP. All of his examples come from how it's changed compared to XP.
The developers of PHP are quick to admit to the weakness of PHP's objects, but they're fixing (so I hear) a good bit of it in PHP 5.
That's not right...when's the last time a computer professional was considered part of civilization? Doesn't that require some type of interaction?
You both seem to be thinking that "real-time" means "fast" when in fact it means that the time constraints are specified with regard to the outside world (thus the phrase "real time"). It doesn't matter if we're talking eons or fempto-secconds, as long as we define success or failure in terms of real world, physical time instead of some internal metric such as processor time.
I never mentioned fast. You seem to be missing the underlying definition of a real-time system. If you know of a payroll system that runs on a real-time operating system, I would love to hear about it. It would pretty much mean that the only thing that operating system is used for is payroll.
Real-time systems are about priority. A real-time system, hard or soft, will run real-time application without context switches until that process is complete. No system would ever run a payroll system without context switches, it just doesn't make sense to do so.
We're not talking about human deadlines as time constaints. We're talking about real-time operating systems.
Taken from Operating System Concepts by Silberschatz, Galvin, and Gagne, "A real-time system is used when rigid time requirements have been placed on the operation of a processor or the flow of data; thus, it is often used as a control device in a dedicated application."
"A real-time system has well-defined, fixed time constraints. Processing must be done within the defined constraints, or the system will fail. For instance, it would not do for a robot arm to be instructed to halt after it had smashed into a car it was building."
Look at this as saying that the process must be given CPU time to insure that it completes within its time constraint. This is not the case for the payroll system. The payroll system does not require all of a CPU's attention. While you may have to get payroll in by Friday, it's not a rigid time contraint. Anytime on Friday will do just fine.
Some examples of real-time systems that they list are systems the control scientific experiements, medical imaging systems, industrial control systems... .