I was able to get 8/8, but I'm pretty sure a naive user would have done no better than chance. I wonder who these "experts" are who did so badly.
There's really no overall strategy here. Mostly, my strategy was to find the site that was even more obviously unsafe and vote *against* it. Other times, I had outside knowledge that a certain site was ok or not.
On question 1, they show you two pages that provide free screensavers. These are suspicious to begin with. Look at the title bar of the bad site. It contains obvious keyword spam "Download for Free screen saver screensaver." So they obviously can't be trusted, even if they don't install any spyware. So that's a vote against them. I didn't think they ok site looked very reliable either, but they also post a description for each screen saver saying that it's shareware. Seems less likely to be spyware. With spyware, everything is FREE so you get more downloads.
Question 2 was a giveaway in that it actually had fine print on the bad site saying they install popup software. Again, if I ended up on either site, I'd probably close it because I have no interest in "free" screensavers or smiley software.
The bad site for question #3 looked bogus to me. There's no real information on the front page, just a bunch of links for you to click. No file sizes, nothing but "Free free free!" The good site also looks pretty suspicious. Why would it take 15 minutes to download a tiny pinball game? And they also used exclamation points way too often. On the other hand, the presence of a forum makes them a little more likely to be legit.
For question #4, azlyrics comes up on google all the time for lyrics searches, so I'm assuming it's ok. There are no obvious hints that the other site is malicious.
I knew the bearshare and kazaa bundled badness, and I use eMule all the time. I'd never heard of blubster, but there was almost no info on the page, so I didn't trust it.
So that's my strategy - don't trust things. You should see me squinting in suspicion every time I find a new site. People will lie to you all the damn time, especially when they have something to gain.
'Graf-whatever elevates graffiti to commerce' sounds more appropriate.
A great deal of graffiti already is art. It doesn't have to be linked to the web to be art. You morons.
It seems that the Macrovision encoding would greatly limit the number of new DVD rips shared on BitTorrent or other P2P networks. I assume that most of the DVD content on these networks is from individual users who rip DVDs they have access to and share them out. If you have to do all your ripping in real-time, only the more dedicated filesharers will bother. It just won't be as easy.
So I see this new idea as primarily an attack on filesharing, which may not actually be hurting the industry, but we all know how much it scares them.
Here in New York City, I see commercial DVD piracy on the streets every day. I pass three or four guys with DVDs spread out on the street selling for $5-10 each, and usually one guy walks by in the subway with discs. Every day. And a lot of these are titles that are just-released or about to be released in theatres. You know they're not legal. I've always wondered how these guys stay running because these street vendors probably don't have the knowledge or money to get access to the content themselves. I imagine there are guys out there printing and selling the whole product to the vendors at like $2 or $3 a disc. These guys are not going to be stopped by the new Macrovision protection, because they make a lot of money if they can just make a single master copy. And they don't even need a huge catalog, just the top 50 or so. The cases look remotely legitimate, but clearly not quite right.
I think the sale of pirated clone DVDs is a lot worse. It's for-profit and can also occur on a huge scale. But I guess these guys are easier to track down and sue.
Yes, you can update your redhat-release number and do updates against the new redhat major version. My method of doing this is to update the redhat-release RPM which is the stub marking the version number.
There are some major caveats, though. There may be a lot of packages you simply don't have, and you'll have to find these one at a time and merge them in.
Some RPMS get repackaged into separate parts. e.g. the chunks of glibc that got moved into glibc-common with the 7.1 release. You'll have to manually search for these chunks. They usually have a similar name, but occasionally you'll find something like a library that's be moved to a totally different bundle.
I think this is probably a lot of work. I can do it, but it's time-consuming and I don't know a lot of other people willing to sort through RPM conflicts for a few hours.
There are also occasionally weird incompatibilities with updating your redhat major version. e.g. the Oracle client installer won't run on redhat 7.1. It's a java-based program, and it just won't execute. It comes packaged with its own jre, works fine on 7.0. For machines that aren't your desktop or test playgrounds, I would stick to updates off the installed base version.
Getting good access to the internal hardware is unlikely.
The reason is that if you want to develop a game for PS2, you have to license a development kit from Sony, which costs a few hundred thousand USD. (I think it's $250K.) That's it. You can't even look at the SDK unless you cough up the cash. My office has a contact at Sony and this is what we found out when we were considering using their platform.
So if we can bypass their SDK and write our games and graphics demos under the PS2 Linux environment without paying the quarter-million fee, Sony loses a big revenue stream.
So while you will be able to write to the X API for graphics, don't expect to have access via Linux to any optimized graphics features the PS2 provides.
As for Firewire, if it's a standard OHCI chip, then you'll be able to use the Linux1394 drivers and edit all the video you can eat. If it's a proprietary Sony interface, then we're stuck with whatever access they decide to release (if anything).
Reading Slashdot Posts considered harmful
on
This is IT?
·
· Score: 2, Informative
Is it standard behavior around here to just shoot your mouth off without even reading about the topic in question?
Moderators and posters alike seem to be struck by idiocy here. Your job as a moderator isn't just to rate how much like the poster's writing, it's also to filter out totally inaccurate information. And there are a lot of high-rated posts on this topic that are totally incorrect.
I've seen people posting that this creature travels at 17mph. It's 12, according to the segway site.
I've seen people questioning the maximum range of 17 miles. The advertised effective range is 11 miles.
People complain about lack of cargo ability. They say there is a planned attachment that will pull 300 lbs of cargo.
The Time article says it is available now to corporations for around $8000, and will be available to the general public next year for $3000.
Shame on you morons who can write but can't read. Then again, you can't read this, either.
The one truly valid objection I have is that even at 12mph, it's still 3-4 times faster than most pedestrians. Most cities don't allow bicycles, which usually stick to around 12mph in the city, to ride on the sidewalk. So without good bike lanes everywhere, riding one of these around town could be difficult or dangerous.
The original question is basically meaningless without a description of the real project requirements.
You've put some big numbers up there, which all the hardware-heads have been happy to answer for you. But without real information, this is all just big-clock-speed hardware masturbation.
The real question is: what kind of single system/application would produce 24,000 hours of unedited high-quality video per day and storing it until the end of time?
Most respondents seem to assume that you're running a network of security cameras. If so, other posters have indicated that your quality or recording time requirements are probably 1-2 orders of magnitude too high.
If you're producing something where this video is actually going to be watched by people who care about beautiful full-color full-frame-rate production quality, where is your 200 million dollar production staff that will be watching and cataloging this data? And if you can afford that, surely you can afford at least one knowledgable systems engineer who knows how to design a storage system!
My absolute favorite bit of your post: "Reliability should be good enough to not be annoying long term". So how much lossage is "annoying"? Will you save space by randomly culling videos from the previous 7 days? If the whole system breaks down once a month, will that be annoying? If you lose one minute out of each hour, will that be annoying?
This is the sort of problem that can be designed and solved if you've got the need and budget for it. But it's not a turnkey solution. That's why you hire engineers.
Slashdot Mirror
I was able to get 8/8, but I'm pretty sure a naive user would have done no better than chance. I wonder who these "experts" are who did so badly.
There's really no overall strategy here. Mostly, my strategy was to find the site that was even more obviously unsafe and vote *against* it. Other times, I had outside
knowledge that a certain site was ok or not.
On question 1, they show you two pages that provide free screensavers. These are suspicious to begin with. Look at the title bar of the bad site. It contains obvious keyword spam "Download for Free screen saver screensaver." So they obviously can't be trusted, even if they don't install any spyware. So that's a vote against them. I didn't think they ok site looked very reliable either, but they also post a description for each screen saver saying that it's shareware. Seems less likely to be spyware. With spyware, everything is FREE so you get more downloads.
Question 2 was a giveaway in that it actually had fine print on the bad site saying they install popup software. Again, if I ended up on either site, I'd probably close it because I have no interest in "free" screensavers or smiley software.
The bad site for question #3 looked bogus to me. There's no real information on the front page, just a bunch of links for you to click. No file sizes, nothing but "Free free free!" The good site also looks pretty suspicious. Why would it take 15 minutes to download a tiny pinball game? And they also used exclamation points way too often. On the other hand, the presence of a forum makes them a little more likely to be legit.
For question #4, azlyrics comes up on google all the time for lyrics searches, so I'm assuming it's ok. There are no obvious hints that the other site is malicious.
I knew the bearshare and kazaa bundled badness, and I use eMule all the time. I'd never heard of blubster, but there was almost no info on the page, so I didn't trust it.
So that's my strategy - don't trust things. You should see me squinting in suspicion every time I find a new site. People will lie to you all the damn time, especially when they have something to gain.
'Graf-whatever elevates graffiti to commerce' sounds more appropriate. A great deal of graffiti already is art. It doesn't have to be linked to the web to be art. You morons.
It seems that the Macrovision encoding would greatly limit the number of new DVD rips shared on BitTorrent or other P2P networks. I assume that most of the DVD content on these networks is from individual users who rip DVDs they have access to and share them out. If you have to do all your ripping in real-time, only the more dedicated filesharers will bother. It just won't be as easy.
So I see this new idea as primarily an attack on filesharing, which may not actually be hurting the industry, but we all know how much it scares them.
Here in New York City, I see commercial DVD piracy on the streets every day. I pass three or four guys with DVDs spread out on the street selling for $5-10 each, and usually one guy walks by in the subway with discs. Every day. And a lot of these are titles that are just-released or about to be released in theatres. You know they're not legal. I've always wondered how these guys stay running because these street vendors probably don't have the knowledge or money to get access to the content themselves. I imagine there are guys out there printing and selling the whole product to the vendors at like $2 or $3 a disc. These guys are not going to be stopped by the new Macrovision protection, because they make a lot of money if they can just make a single master copy. And they don't even need a huge catalog, just the top 50 or so. The cases look remotely legitimate, but clearly not quite right.
I think the sale of pirated clone DVDs is a lot worse. It's for-profit and can also occur on a huge scale. But I guess these guys are easier to track down and sue.
http://www.perl.com/language/misc/virus.htmlp lural-of-virus.html
http://homepages.tesco.net/~J.deBoynePollard/FGA/
Sounds like they could get their jobs back by negotiating with extreme prejudice.
Yes, you can update your redhat-release number and do updates against the new redhat major version. My method of doing this is to update the redhat-release RPM which is the stub marking the version number. There are some major caveats, though. There may be a lot of packages you simply don't have, and you'll have to find these one at a time and merge them in. Some RPMS get repackaged into separate parts. e.g. the chunks of glibc that got moved into glibc-common with the 7.1 release. You'll have to manually search for these chunks. They usually have a similar name, but occasionally you'll find something like a library that's be moved to a totally different bundle. I think this is probably a lot of work. I can do it, but it's time-consuming and I don't know a lot of other people willing to sort through RPM conflicts for a few hours. There are also occasionally weird incompatibilities with updating your redhat major version. e.g. the Oracle client installer won't run on redhat 7.1. It's a java-based program, and it just won't execute. It comes packaged with its own jre, works fine on 7.0. For machines that aren't your desktop or test playgrounds, I would stick to updates off the installed base version.
Getting good access to the internal hardware is unlikely.
The reason is that if you want to develop a game for PS2, you have to license a development kit from Sony, which costs a few hundred thousand USD. (I think it's $250K.) That's it. You can't even look at the SDK unless you cough up the cash. My office has a contact at Sony and this is what we found out when we were considering using their platform.
So if we can bypass their SDK and write our games and graphics demos under the PS2 Linux environment without paying the quarter-million fee, Sony loses a big revenue stream.
So while you will be able to write to the X API for graphics, don't expect to have access via Linux to any optimized graphics features the PS2 provides.
As for Firewire, if it's a standard OHCI chip, then you'll be able to use the Linux1394 drivers and edit all the video you can eat. If it's a proprietary Sony interface, then we're stuck with whatever access they decide to release (if anything).
Is it standard behavior around here to just shoot your mouth off without even reading about the topic in question?
Moderators and posters alike seem to be struck by idiocy here. Your job as a moderator isn't just to rate how much like the poster's writing, it's also to filter out totally inaccurate information. And there are a lot of high-rated posts on this topic that are totally incorrect.
I've seen people posting that this creature travels at 17mph. It's 12, according to the segway site.
I've seen people questioning the maximum range of 17 miles. The advertised effective range is 11 miles.
People complain about lack of cargo ability. They say there is a planned attachment that will pull 300 lbs of cargo.
The Time article says it is available now to corporations for around $8000, and will be available to the general public next year for $3000.
Shame on you morons who can write but can't read. Then again, you can't read this, either.
The one truly valid objection I have is that even at 12mph, it's still 3-4 times faster than most pedestrians. Most cities don't allow bicycles, which usually stick to around 12mph in the city, to ride on the sidewalk. So without good bike lanes everywhere, riding one of these around town could be difficult or dangerous.
The original question is basically meaningless without a description of the real project requirements.
You've put some big numbers up there, which all the hardware-heads have been happy to answer for you. But without real information, this is all just big-clock-speed hardware masturbation.
The real question is: what kind of single system/application would produce 24,000 hours of unedited high-quality video per day and storing it until the end of time?
Most respondents seem to assume that you're running a network of security cameras. If so, other posters have indicated that your quality or recording time requirements are probably 1-2 orders of magnitude too high.
If you're producing something where this video is actually going to be watched by people who care about beautiful full-color full-frame-rate production quality, where is your 200 million dollar production staff that will be watching and cataloging this data? And if you can afford that, surely you can afford at least one knowledgable systems engineer who knows how to design a storage system!
My absolute favorite bit of your post: "Reliability should be good enough to not be annoying long term". So how much lossage is "annoying"? Will you save space by randomly culling videos from the previous 7 days? If the whole system breaks down once a month, will that be annoying? If you lose one minute out of each hour, will that be annoying?
This is the sort of problem that can be designed and solved if you've got the need and budget for it. But it's not a turnkey solution. That's why you hire engineers.