This is not exaclty news. HD-DVD has always had the option to put DVD and HD-DVD content on the same disk. Before you had to put them on opposite sides of the disk. Blu-Ray could not do this.
It had the same selling point though. Sell a disk with the movie on it in two formats to future proof a purchase and lock in HD-DVD customers before they get the hardware.
All this enhancement does is have more content on each side of the disk. That's not so great considering that you can not put full size versions of a movie in both formats on the same side of the disk. One version or the other would be on half the space with only one layer. And the players would have to be able to ask you which layer you want to view on a given side, the DVD layer(s) or HD-DVD layer(s).
I don't see a lot of market benefit for this. Maybe they can put the "extra" content on the DVD layer while putting the movie in maximum resulution on the HD-DVD layers. It would give their HD-DVD movies that much more disk space not being used up by the extras.
It's market penetration. The more copies of Vista that go out, the more likely that MS can talk vendors into making their apps Vista only, and then use that as leverge to force other users to upgrade. Without the initial market penetration, they can't get the other forces working with them.
Getting people up to Vista is not only about money, it's about going another level up the MS proprietary ladder.
That's the same thing I said about XP, and the reason I stayed on Win2k way after XP was the norm.
Sooner or later, it will have something that you need and can't get on XP, or you will get a new PC that has it bundled (or you are not on windows anyway so you aren't part of this conversation:) )
It's all acadimic at the moment. The hardest part will be keeping up with the new planets added every few years, and teaching the school kids the paragraphs they'll need to memorize just to keep up with them all. They'll probably give up and issue planet charts like periodic tables.
In a few centuries, when colonies settle on many of these rocks, things will change. When funding and settlement grants start flowing and depending on the classification of the particular piece of rock you are trying to settle on (or strip the resources off of), then the definitions of those classifications will begin to get very important, and there will be all kinds of political infighting on the definition of a planet.
PreparedStatements can be immune to SQL Injection based attacks.
You should stipulate that you must bind all parameters to placeholders. You could use PreparedStatement the same way as Statement and have the same problem. Bind all parameters, no matter what language you are using.
Just don't build your query on the fly.
Bind ALL parameters to placeholders in a prebuilt query. Binding is an instant kill for any SQL injection attack. It is also much more effecient on many databases.
Yep, that's about it. This is not about blocking the flow of network traffic, it's about tracking documents with varying levels of security attached.
The Navy, along with many other government agencies, tracks secrecy of certain information by grades: Classified, Secret, Top Secret (or some such arrangement). If you create a new document and it includes some information from a classified document and some information from a Top Secret document, the new document is graded as Top Secret due to the most secure level of information included.
What the Navy appears to be doing is they have two networks that are graded at two levels, say Top Secret and Classified. The Top Secret network should be able to get inforamtion from the Classified network (or in the language of the patent, the Classified network can pass information to the Top Secret network), but the the Classified network should never be able to get information from the Top Secret network. The information in question is not about packets, it's about the information in the documents. It's a document and information handling system.
Now, something like this might be implemented like a firewall (as a controlled port between the systems) but it would be much more effective if it was imbedded in the whole document handeling and transfer software from the ground up. It's the difference between having a firewall, and having all applications exposed to the network be secure.
So it's not a firewall per se. Bruce jumped the gun and didn't understand the purpose of the patent.
There are lots of suggestions here about what product to use since that is what the question asked. But I don't think that is really the correct question. You end up either with easy technology that is not flexable enough for their needs, or powerfull technology that is too hard for the non-tech users to get a handle on. Either way, they are not going to get what they want out of it.
The correct question should have been: How can we empower our users to get the functionality they want without going into the deep end of IT development?
The answer is to get them an "office geek". Hire one young fresh out of college tech geek. Her/His job is to go around the office and find these small projects, improve them into slightly better tech but still keep them small simple projects. He/She should know the basic tech that the users need, whether it be web, DB or media. He/She should be able to put together the appropriate basic tech behind it, shooting for open source or small product packages first but moving up to big products like Oracle only if necessary. IT will work with person only so far as to guide him/her to IT resources that might help, assist or supplant his plans and give helpfull hints if he gets lost due to inexperiance. If he does really well, IT can adopt his work into the IT work flow.
It may sound a little expensive to hire such a geek. But over the long run I bet it is very effective in making the rest of the staff more productive. They cut their inexperineced development time a lot and get back to what they should be doing. Productivity up for everyone else, and better data handeling to go with it.
It's like having an "Ask Slashdot" right there on staff, but one who can do more than just answer questions.
Ahh, but therein lies the fun.
In some games you can shoot the wall and leave holes and scars. So just allow shooting up the advertisement, or drawing funny pictures on it with bullit holes, or even taking down a whole billboard ad with your rocket launcher.
Now that's the way to remove advertising. Tell the advertisers how you really feel about their ads.
That's way to hard to do, and most unlikely anyway.
Maybe we can just get all video games classified as firearms. After all, it's a lot easier to buy firearms than video games. And they could NEVER take them away from us.
Well, that is A problem, but I would not call it THE problem. Media is a small part of computing.
One of the requirements that all these comparisons have is "It must be compatible with my Windows computer that I use at work". As long as the requirements spell out "Windows" rather than just functionality like word processing and whatever, then Windows will always have the advantage. If the requirement read "Must be compatible with my Linux system at work", then the comparison would be very different.
The critical mass is still with Windows. People try to hide that by rewording the requirements to something that does not mention Windows by name, but it always comes back to compatibility with Windows functionality and Microsoft formats.
This is why things like Open Document Formats are important. If the requirements shift from a microsoft format to a non-microdoft format, then you've knocked down one more element of their critical mass. You could count media as windows friendly formats in this context. But it is only one of many windows friendly formats.
So, in the end, it will amount to nothing more than the extenction of the species. Once anyone who does not want to be spied on finds out that sharks might be spys, they will set out to hunt and kill any shark they find. In the end the sharks will be extinct and the program will be back to square one, but then maybe eyeing some other sea life to put into the same situation as a replacement.
It's everyone, not just ATI. Plenty of nVidia cards advertise it and don't have it. In fact, no video card in public release truely supports HDCP. So anyone who advertises it is lying.
It's a decent enough object-oriented scripting language. Most of the criticism of it comes from people who've only been exposed to dumb popup window scripts and rollovers. UI scripting is only one application, you can write server-side code, admin scripts and all sorts with it.
Do you think the script writers would squeal too loudly if we added stuff like namespaces, strong typing and libraries to it? Having try/catch is respectable though.
And it's delivered as source code, not exactly efficient. It's only a matter of time before some IP freak somewhere demands a way to protect their property with encryption or something. Maybe compiled ECMAScript with all those features. Oh wait, that's called Java. Never mind.
I shouldn't rag on it. It's good for what it was designed to do. It just bothers me how people are (in my opinion) trying to do too much with it. Right tool for the job and all that. There are already tools for high function web interfaces. But for some reason Java didn't last in that space (mostly due to download/startup time and UI consistency, which have both been adressed since then). I look forward to ECMAScript morphing into all the things that originally sunk Java as a web UI.
(Just FYI, I have written AJAX apps, but before the term AJAX was widely used. Creating and manipulating the UI and user behavior as a DOM is just a pain. Languages with clear UI related features are much easier to develop UIs in.)
It's amazing how we keep going back and forth between fat server and fat client.
First, you had to sit in front of the computer to use it. Then they invented terminals so you could sit far away and use it remotely. Then they invented portable/personal computers so you could take it with you and have it right in front of you again. Then they invented the web so you could use a program running on a computer far away. Now you just download the AJAX program and run it on your own computer again.
Of course each iteration adds some fine tuning and functionality to the mix.
But aren't we just moving from thin client to fat client again, only in Javascript instead of something else, and with awkward stateless HTTP connectivity thrown in to make it that much harder? And it's not like Javascripts is a decent engineering language. It's a UI scripting language for Gods sake.
Does this mean that every publicly funded government progam must expose all conflicts in public interpretation in every publication they make? Is it enough to have a "disclaimer" page on their website? Why does it have to be every reference? Are other publicly funded agencies required to reference all conflicting issues in every publication?
The problem is that this is very targeted on a single issue at a single agency. If it is policy, then why isn't it policy for everyone? If it is not polciy for every one, then why only this one? If you think a publicly funded probram must publish all conflicts of policy or belief in every reference in every publication, then that is a recipe for documentation overload.
I'm not trying to go extremist, but a policy must be applied equally, not haphazzardly. If a policy is relevant, it must be appplied equally on all issues. Otherwise, it is just a vehicle for abuse.
While it appears to be politics as usual, this particular branch has an interesting history at The Discovery Institute". It is targeting science, and not just individual theories that conflict with docterine but all of science and the scientific process.
Does the minister of your local church teach the controversy? Or does he teach that ID is right and everything else is wrong? Should he be forced to teach the controvercy and not impose any particular idea?
A minister of a church can teach whatever idea he wants, including ID, because it is an institution of religious philosophy and that is what they do.
On the other hand, NASA is an institute of science. What they do there is science research. They will refer to all sorts of scientific ideas there because it is part of their job. Discussing ID is not part of their job because it is not relevent to what they are doing. So they shorthand the word "theory" out for brevity and convenience.
So:
1. Which institutions should be allowed to stick to their basic reason for existance and be allowed to narrowly focus on that topic (be it theology or research)?
2. which institutions should be forced to "teach the controvercy" even though it may not be relevent to them?
Should churches be forced to "teach the controvercy" rather than just teach genesis? Or is "teaching the controvercy" only something the other side should? Should they be allowed to shorten their discussions so they focus only on those aspects that are important and relevant to them?
I'm not looking for right or wrong. I'm looking for consistency. If you have a rule, apply it the same everywhere, not just where it is most convenient to one point of view.
Almost. People love to try to control morality. They try to use government as the tool of their control. Don't lay all your problems on the "government". That just disguises the problem and confuses the solution.
Hmmm. Interesting. With all that (esp length != 1) it starts to form a picture.
Programmer initially writing this thing needs to debug along the way. He puts in AbortProc with imbedded code rather than callback pointer (after all, where could it point to?) to make a popup or something. If set properly, it mearly keeps the address of the code and continues. Later somewhere it hits an error and aborts. When the interpreter Aborts, he gets his popup in the right place. Maybe he did it for himself, or maybe he did it for someone else who's writing a WMF author. He's not thinking about potential misuse.
So... What happens if you make an AbortProc packet, with embedded code instead of pointer. Then you set the length properly to point to after the code. Then there's another error later. Will it abort? Will it run the code? It's worth a test to someone with a test harness.
It's looking more like design. But maybe not malicious design, just "too clever for it's own good" design.
Slashdot Mirror
It had the same selling point though. Sell a disk with the movie on it in two formats to future proof a purchase and lock in HD-DVD customers before they get the hardware.
All this enhancement does is have more content on each side of the disk. That's not so great considering that you can not put full size versions of a movie in both formats on the same side of the disk. One version or the other would be on half the space with only one layer. And the players would have to be able to ask you which layer you want to view on a given side, the DVD layer(s) or HD-DVD layer(s).
I don't see a lot of market benefit for this. Maybe they can put the "extra" content on the DVD layer while putting the movie in maximum resulution on the HD-DVD layers. It would give their HD-DVD movies that much more disk space not being used up by the extras.
Getting people up to Vista is not only about money, it's about going another level up the MS proprietary ladder.
Sooner or later, it will have something that you need and can't get on XP, or you will get a new PC that has it bundled (or you are not on windows anyway so you aren't part of this conversation :) )
Fortunately, that one is aready out on DVD.
In a few centuries, when colonies settle on many of these rocks, things will change. When funding and settlement grants start flowing and depending on the classification of the particular piece of rock you are trying to settle on (or strip the resources off of), then the definitions of those classifications will begin to get very important, and there will be all kinds of political infighting on the definition of a planet.
You should stipulate that you must bind all parameters to placeholders. You could use PreparedStatement the same way as Statement and have the same problem. Bind all parameters, no matter what language you are using.
Just don't build your query on the fly.
Bind ALL parameters to placeholders in a prebuilt query. Binding is an instant kill for any SQL injection attack. It is also much more effecient on many databases.
The Navy, along with many other government agencies, tracks secrecy of certain information by grades: Classified, Secret, Top Secret (or some such arrangement). If you create a new document and it includes some information from a classified document and some information from a Top Secret document, the new document is graded as Top Secret due to the most secure level of information included.
What the Navy appears to be doing is they have two networks that are graded at two levels, say Top Secret and Classified. The Top Secret network should be able to get inforamtion from the Classified network (or in the language of the patent, the Classified network can pass information to the Top Secret network), but the the Classified network should never be able to get information from the Top Secret network. The information in question is not about packets, it's about the information in the documents. It's a document and information handling system.
Now, something like this might be implemented like a firewall (as a controlled port between the systems) but it would be much more effective if it was imbedded in the whole document handeling and transfer software from the ground up. It's the difference between having a firewall, and having all applications exposed to the network be secure.
So it's not a firewall per se. Bruce jumped the gun and didn't understand the purpose of the patent.
The correct question should have been: How can we empower our users to get the functionality they want without going into the deep end of IT development?
The answer is to get them an "office geek". Hire one young fresh out of college tech geek. Her/His job is to go around the office and find these small projects, improve them into slightly better tech but still keep them small simple projects. He/She should know the basic tech that the users need, whether it be web, DB or media. He/She should be able to put together the appropriate basic tech behind it, shooting for open source or small product packages first but moving up to big products like Oracle only if necessary. IT will work with person only so far as to guide him/her to IT resources that might help, assist or supplant his plans and give helpfull hints if he gets lost due to inexperiance. If he does really well, IT can adopt his work into the IT work flow.
It may sound a little expensive to hire such a geek. But over the long run I bet it is very effective in making the rest of the staff more productive. They cut their inexperineced development time a lot and get back to what they should be doing. Productivity up for everyone else, and better data handeling to go with it.
It's like having an "Ask Slashdot" right there on staff, but one who can do more than just answer questions.
(I hope they don't forget the "go home" part this time.)
In some games you can shoot the wall and leave holes and scars. So just allow shooting up the advertisement, or drawing funny pictures on it with bullit holes, or even taking down a whole billboard ad with your rocket launcher.
Now that's the way to remove advertising. Tell the advertisers how you really feel about their ads.
Maybe we can just get all video games classified as firearms. After all, it's a lot easier to buy firearms than video games. And they could NEVER take them away from us.
One of the requirements that all these comparisons have is "It must be compatible with my Windows computer that I use at work". As long as the requirements spell out "Windows" rather than just functionality like word processing and whatever, then Windows will always have the advantage. If the requirement read "Must be compatible with my Linux system at work", then the comparison would be very different.
The critical mass is still with Windows. People try to hide that by rewording the requirements to something that does not mention Windows by name, but it always comes back to compatibility with Windows functionality and Microsoft formats.
This is why things like Open Document Formats are important. If the requirements shift from a microsoft format to a non-microdoft format, then you've knocked down one more element of their critical mass. You could count media as windows friendly formats in this context. But it is only one of many windows friendly formats.
"You may be able to fire me, but you can't stop me from working for you!"
I've seen another. This one has a 3D fly over with relief, pilotable. It's nice and simple, but effective. (Warning, Flash/Shockwave ahead)
Mars Quest
It has quite a bit of background on mars and the various missions. It's worth a look if you can get in.
Nice job guys. Way to think ahead.
It's everyone, not just ATI. Plenty of nVidia cards advertise it and don't have it. In fact, no video card in public release truely supports HDCP. So anyone who advertises it is lying.
Maybe they should start making the article title for all of the articles linking to him "More Stupid Dvorak Tricks".
Do you think the script writers would squeal too loudly if we added stuff like namespaces, strong typing and libraries to it? Having try/catch is respectable though.
And it's delivered as source code, not exactly efficient. It's only a matter of time before some IP freak somewhere demands a way to protect their property with encryption or something. Maybe compiled ECMAScript with all those features. Oh wait, that's called Java. Never mind.
I shouldn't rag on it. It's good for what it was designed to do. It just bothers me how people are (in my opinion) trying to do too much with it. Right tool for the job and all that. There are already tools for high function web interfaces. But for some reason Java didn't last in that space (mostly due to download/startup time and UI consistency, which have both been adressed since then). I look forward to ECMAScript morphing into all the things that originally sunk Java as a web UI.
(Just FYI, I have written AJAX apps, but before the term AJAX was widely used. Creating and manipulating the UI and user behavior as a DOM is just a pain. Languages with clear UI related features are much easier to develop UIs in.)
First, you had to sit in front of the computer to use it. Then they invented terminals so you could sit far away and use it remotely. Then they invented portable/personal computers so you could take it with you and have it right in front of you again. Then they invented the web so you could use a program running on a computer far away. Now you just download the AJAX program and run it on your own computer again.
Of course each iteration adds some fine tuning and functionality to the mix.
But aren't we just moving from thin client to fat client again, only in Javascript instead of something else, and with awkward stateless HTTP connectivity thrown in to make it that much harder? And it's not like Javascripts is a decent engineering language. It's a UI scripting language for Gods sake.
The problem is that this is very targeted on a single issue at a single agency. If it is policy, then why isn't it policy for everyone? If it is not polciy for every one, then why only this one? If you think a publicly funded probram must publish all conflicts of policy or belief in every reference in every publication, then that is a recipe for documentation overload.
I'm not trying to go extremist, but a policy must be applied equally, not haphazzardly. If a policy is relevant, it must be appplied equally on all issues. Otherwise, it is just a vehicle for abuse.
While it appears to be politics as usual, this particular branch has an interesting history at The Discovery Institute". It is targeting science, and not just individual theories that conflict with docterine but all of science and the scientific process.
Does the minister of your local church teach the controversy? Or does he teach that ID is right and everything else is wrong? Should he be forced to teach the controvercy and not impose any particular idea?
A minister of a church can teach whatever idea he wants, including ID, because it is an institution of religious philosophy and that is what they do.
On the other hand, NASA is an institute of science. What they do there is science research. They will refer to all sorts of scientific ideas there because it is part of their job. Discussing ID is not part of their job because it is not relevent to what they are doing. So they shorthand the word "theory" out for brevity and convenience.
So:
1. Which institutions should be allowed to stick to their basic reason for existance and be allowed to narrowly focus on that topic (be it theology or research)?
2. which institutions should be forced to "teach the controvercy" even though it may not be relevent to them?
Should churches be forced to "teach the controvercy" rather than just teach genesis? Or is "teaching the controvercy" only something the other side should? Should they be allowed to shorten their discussions so they focus only on those aspects that are important and relevant to them?
I'm not looking for right or wrong. I'm looking for consistency. If you have a rule, apply it the same everywhere, not just where it is most convenient to one point of view.
Almost. People love to try to control morality. They try to use government as the tool of their control.
Don't lay all your problems on the "government". That just disguises the problem and confuses the solution.
So... What happens if you make an AbortProc packet, with embedded code instead of pointer. Then you set the length properly to point to after the code. Then there's another error later. Will it abort? Will it run the code? It's worth a test to someone with a test harness.
It's looking more like design. But maybe not malicious design, just "too clever for it's own good" design.