"The proof for this is based on Nyquist's Theorem [bldrdoc.gov], which states that if you sample an analog signal at a rate twice as high as the highest frequency in the signal." (AND???)
Whoops! forgot the last half of the theorm, which is:
Digital reproductions of an analog signal are just as accurate as analog reproductions for the purposes of music playback. The only limiting factor is the playback device (as in, a set of speakers instead of a piano)
The proof for this is based on Nyquist's Theorem, which states that if you sample an analog signal at a rate twice as high as the highest frequency in the signal. Since humans can't hear signals higher than about 20Khz, a sample rate of 44.1Khz (sound familiar?) will produce a digital signal that no human will be able to distingush from it's analog contemporary.
Now, using lossy compression like MP3 WILL cause you to lose singnal, but anyone who says they can tell the difference between analog and digital over the same equipment (amp, speakers, etc...) is full of crap.
As to listing to music over game-boy speakers, you could just as easily shove a screwdriver in your eye, but this begs the question...WHY?!?!?
Microsoft released a new product today named BuggyWhip.NET, which they say will become the industry standard in "Horse Motivation Technology". A Microsoft spokesman was quoted as saying that the motivation behind this release was to prevent Visual J#.NET from becoming the most useless thing on the face of the earth.
This is not going to change until software companies become liable for damages when their software fails. Otherwise there is simply no economic incentive to hire competent programmers and do rigourous testing.
I liked the scene, but I always envisioned Yoda fighting by just standing still and using the force to manipulate his lightsaber without actually touching it.
Maybe that's not practical in the realm of swordfighting, but I think it'd be a lot cooler.
I believe Sirius is going out of business. So much so that I shorted the stock a while ago and made a bundle off it. (Already covered the short, so there's no conflict of interest in this advice).
I doubt Sirius be around in 2 years. You might want to go with XM just so you don't have to buy a new head unit in a couple years.
Programmers don't make systems secure. Admins do. No system in the world be it software, hardware, electronic or mechanical, can be any more secure than the people who maintain it allow it to be. Yes, default settings, and auto-patches and fancy protocols help, but at the end of that day 99.99% of hacks occur because either:
a) User Error (@see shitty passwords)
or
b) The system was not kept up to date.
Beyond that, nothing can be unbreakable. There will always be the 0.01% of hacks that occur because of a design fault, and you will never get rid of that 0.01% no matter how many eyeballs you have. But if you're serious about security use good passwords, and keep your system up to date. Sure it's not sexy, and it won't make stock prices jump, and most of the time it isn't much fun, but unless you're the NSA you will never, ever have to do more than those two things to keep your system safe.
I forget who said it, but right after 9/11, some talking head on TV asked some expert "What can Americans do to stay safe after these attacks?" and the expert answered "Buckle your seat-belt and quit smoking".
NEW YORK (Reuters) - A suspected member of the Al Qaeda terrorist network was captured while attempting to obtain intelligence information about a U.S. Navy Cruiser docked in a New York harbor. When questioned, the suspect admitted that the design for his surveillance gear was supplied by a hacker website known as 'Slashdot'.
Senator Fritz Hollings (D - Disney) called for an immediate retaliatory air strike against the website, for "giving aid and comfort to the enemy". At press time, DoD officials were looking into how exactly to launch an air strike against a website, but had no further comment.
I think the perception that Macs are more secure derives from their relative lack of use in the server world. There are more Windows machines out there and therefore, Windows machines have more problems. I didn't see anything about relative failure rates between MacOS and Windows but I wouldn't be suprised if they were about the same. (Linux might be a little better if for no other reason than your average Linux user actually cares about security).
The reality is 99% of security is up to the user. A properly configured Windows machine is pretty much as secure as a properly configured Mac, or Linux machine, or [insert your OS here].
The more debugging that goes on, the better. Most code today is written by underqualified, overworked programmers who get yelled at when they try to do a good job by spending any decent about of time testing their code.
If the McMBA's in management actually had to worry about making sure the code was solid before they released it, then:
a) they would stop hiring grade C programmers and expecting them to do grade A work.
b) they would give those grade A progammers the time necessary to do the job correctly becuase it would be cost effective to do so.
Just a start...
on
Fair IP Laws?
·
· Score: 3, Interesting
This is a huge issue and I'm no lawyer, so I'm just going to give my opinion on once piece of this puzzle:
EULA's are out of control, and they shield software companies from lawsuits which would motivite them to produce better software. In an effort to stop this I would propose the following:
1) EULA's for commercial software must be agreed to BEFORE the software can be purchaced. If software companies do not provide a mechanism for this then they must allow users to return the software for a full refund.
2) Implied warranties like the warranty of merchantability and fittness for a particular purpose cannot we waived in a commerical software EULA. Free (as in beer) software can be distriubuted 'as is', but the second you exchange money for software, you take responsibility for it functioning correctly.
I realize that this will increase the cost of software in the short term, especially as companies scramble to get their software up to code before the changes go into effect. However the long term effect of ignoring faulty software cannot be overlooked, and the sooner we do something about it, the better.
If Microsoft stood on the world stage and said "We can write software that will never fail" would anyone believe them? Seriously...I'm not trying to troll here. Talk to any average joe-schmo computer user and ask them how many times a day Windows crashes on them. Now ask them if they would trust their lives to Microsoft software. I'd be willing to bet the answer would be no.
The fact is that Microsoft does not have that "hardcore mission-critical" reputation that many other companies have, even in the general public. But they pretend that they do...and it's going to get them in trouble one day.
"Does your school have different curriculum tracks for software engineering and computer science"
Learning the basics of how to program will be the same for both tracks, but the 3rd and 4th year classes should be very different. Computer science, is a SCIENCE, while software system development is something else entirely. Schools that don't recognize the difference are so out of touch that the knowledge they teach you will not be applicable in the real world.
Software is no longer just a tool for mathmaticians to solve complex equations. Unfortunatly, I think many CS professors are still locked into the scientific mindset when it comes to computers.
Three things need to happen in order for people to start getting serious about software security and reliability:
1) A software system with 1 or more serious _known_ flaws must be used on a worldwide scale by a government agency or large company.
2) That software must then fail.
3) The failure must cause thousands of deaths or hundreds of billions of dollars in loss or damage.
The result will be like the 9/11 of software...when the world wakes up and realizes that we have become so dependent on software systems for our daily lives that we actually have to start caring whether or not they work correctly. We need to start taking an engineering approach to software and KNOW (not think) that it will operate as advertised.
I'm actually hoping that this will occur sooner than later. The later it happens, the more catastrophic the result will be and the less time we'll have to rectify the problem before it happens again.
There goes my theory about the universal constants containing a message from the Creator of the universe. Guess I'll have to start working on that old universal field theory again.
Privacy is one of those things that geeks pay attention to because they're so acutely aware of how easy it is to lose it and how annoying the ramifications can be. The vast majority of people out there don't care about their privacy because:
a) They're mostly ignorant about what they're giving up, and
b) They're too busy trying to feed and house themselves given all the other shit they have to deal with.
Geeks, on the other hand, are intelligent and have enough free time to sit around and discuss about how they're getting royally fucked over...which, of course, they are. This is why it is our job to inform people whenever possible, and most importantly, supply the tools necessary to protect personal privacy (Ad-Aware, anyone?), and make those tools easy to use for the poor schmucks out there who don't have time to worry about it.
I've gotten to the point where no news of Microsoft's misdeeds would shock me anymore.
Microsoft is cutting up babies to make their user manuals! So what.
They're attempting to terraform the earth's atmosphere to more closely resemble Bill Gates' home planet! Big deal.
Steve Ballmer has Stalin's brain implanted into his skull to make him a more effective leader! What else is new.....
Seriously, anything you could say about something evil that Microsoft does...I wouldn't disbelieve it. I don't know if this speaks more about Microsoft's trashed reputation, or my jaded attitude toward MegaCorp(tm) style policies.
These guysuse openGL to speed up video compositing (to the point where it's real time!). It's interesting to see what is esentially gaming hardware used for professional video production.
I've always seen on EULA's something to the effect of: "If you cannot accept this agreement, please return this product to the retailer you purchaced it from". Has anyone ever actually done this?...Returned opened software saying 'I couldn't accept the license agreement'? Could you use this as a way to get around the Windows tax on new PCs?
The sad thing is, as long as congress keeps passing ridiculous laws like the DMCA, the RIAA will have an argument for the formation of these ridiculous law enforcement groups. The problem here is not that the RIAA wants it's own secret police, but that the laws exist that give those police a job to do.
However, when when the IP spooks start knocking on the doors of well meaning people everywhere demanding that they uninstall Kazaa or have their computer seized, maybe we can get the grass-roots support to get these laws repealed.
Slashdot Mirror
"The proof for this is based on Nyquist's Theorem [bldrdoc.gov], which states that if you sample an analog signal at a rate twice as high as the highest frequency in the signal." (AND???)
Whoops! forgot the last half of the theorm, which is:
you can then reproduce it without error.
Digital reproductions of an analog signal are just as accurate as analog reproductions for the purposes of music playback. The only limiting factor is the playback device (as in, a set of speakers instead of a piano)
The proof for this is based on Nyquist's Theorem, which states that if you sample an analog signal at a rate twice as high as the highest frequency in the signal. Since humans can't hear signals higher than about 20Khz, a sample rate of 44.1Khz (sound familiar?) will produce a digital signal that no human will be able to distingush from it's analog contemporary.
Now, using lossy compression like MP3 WILL cause you to lose singnal, but anyone who says they can tell the difference between analog and digital over the same equipment (amp, speakers, etc...) is full of crap.
As to listing to music over game-boy speakers, you could just as easily shove a screwdriver in your eye, but this begs the question...WHY?!?!?
Microsoft released a new product today named BuggyWhip.NET, which they say will become the industry standard in "Horse Motivation Technology". A Microsoft spokesman was quoted as saying that the motivation behind this release was to prevent Visual J#.NET from becoming the most useless thing on the face of the earth.
Two of the guys running this show:
Penna & Osborn => banner snoop
Pretty much says it all...
This is not going to change until software companies become liable for damages when their software fails. Otherwise there is simply no economic incentive to hire competent programmers and do rigourous testing.
"Here's an idea: Maybe if we give them something they actually want, they'll pay us for it."
"Wow...you think so? Well, let's give it a shot. Can't be any worse than that MiniDisc fiasco."
I liked the scene, but I always envisioned Yoda fighting by just standing still and using the force to manipulate his lightsaber without actually touching it.
Maybe that's not practical in the realm of swordfighting, but I think it'd be a lot cooler.
I believe Sirius is going out of business. So much so that I shorted the stock a while ago and made a bundle off it. (Already covered the short, so there's no conflict of interest in this advice).
I doubt Sirius be around in 2 years. You might want to go with XM just so you don't have to buy a new head unit in a couple years.
Programmers don't make systems secure. Admins do. No system in the world be it software, hardware, electronic or mechanical, can be any more secure than the people who maintain it allow it to be. Yes, default settings, and auto-patches and fancy protocols help, but at the end of that day 99.99% of hacks occur because either:
a) User Error (@see shitty passwords)
or
b) The system was not kept up to date.
Beyond that, nothing can be unbreakable. There will always be the 0.01% of hacks that occur because of a design fault, and you will never get rid of that 0.01% no matter how many eyeballs you have. But if you're serious about security use good passwords, and keep your system up to date. Sure it's not sexy, and it won't make stock prices jump, and most of the time it isn't much fun, but unless you're the NSA you will never, ever have to do more than those two things to keep your system safe.
I forget who said it, but right after 9/11, some talking head on TV asked some expert "What can Americans do to stay safe after these attacks?" and the expert answered "Buckle your seat-belt and quit smoking".
Occam's razor strikes again.
NEW YORK (Reuters) - A suspected member of the Al Qaeda terrorist network was captured while attempting to obtain intelligence information about a U.S. Navy Cruiser docked in a New York harbor. When questioned, the suspect admitted that the design for his surveillance gear was supplied by a hacker website known as 'Slashdot'.
Senator Fritz Hollings (D - Disney) called for an immediate retaliatory air strike against the website, for "giving aid and comfort to the enemy". At press time, DoD officials were looking into how exactly to launch an air strike against a website, but had no further comment.
I think the perception that Macs are more secure derives from their relative lack of use in the server world. There are more Windows machines out there and therefore, Windows machines have more problems. I didn't see anything about relative failure rates between MacOS and Windows but I wouldn't be suprised if they were about the same. (Linux might be a little better if for no other reason than your average Linux user actually cares about security).
The reality is 99% of security is up to the user. A properly configured Windows machine is pretty much as secure as a properly configured Mac, or Linux machine, or [insert your OS here].
The more debugging that goes on, the better. Most code today is written by underqualified, overworked programmers who get yelled at when they try to do a good job by spending any decent about of time testing their code.
If the McMBA's in management actually had to worry about making sure the code was solid before they released it, then:
a) they would stop hiring grade C programmers and expecting them to do grade A work.
b) they would give those grade A progammers the time necessary to do the job correctly becuase it would be cost effective to do so.
The DMCA doesn't help (or hurt) anyone in Germany, unless someone made Germany the 51st state and didn't tell me.
Uhhhh...squish it?
This is a huge issue and I'm no lawyer, so I'm just going to give my opinion on once piece of this puzzle:
EULA's are out of control, and they shield software companies from lawsuits which would motivite them to produce better software. In an effort to stop this I would propose the following:
1) EULA's for commercial software must be agreed to BEFORE the software can be purchaced. If software companies do not provide a mechanism for this then they must allow users to return the software for a full refund.
2) Implied warranties like the warranty of merchantability and fittness for a particular purpose cannot we waived in a commerical software EULA. Free (as in beer) software can be distriubuted 'as is', but the second you exchange money for software, you take responsibility for it functioning correctly.
I realize that this will increase the cost of software in the short term, especially as companies scramble to get their software up to code before the changes go into effect. However the long term effect of ignoring faulty software cannot be overlooked, and the sooner we do something about it, the better.
If Microsoft stood on the world stage and said "We can write software that will never fail" would anyone believe them? Seriously...I'm not trying to troll here. Talk to any average joe-schmo computer user and ask them how many times a day Windows crashes on them. Now ask them if they would trust their lives to Microsoft software. I'd be willing to bet the answer would be no.
The fact is that Microsoft does not have that "hardcore mission-critical" reputation that many other companies have, even in the general public. But they pretend that they do...and it's going to get them in trouble one day.
The most important question you can ask is:
"Does your school have different curriculum tracks for software engineering and computer science"
Learning the basics of how to program will be the same for both tracks, but the 3rd and 4th year classes should be very different. Computer science, is a SCIENCE, while software system development is something else entirely. Schools that don't recognize the difference are so out of touch that the knowledge they teach you will not be applicable in the real world.
Software is no longer just a tool for mathmaticians to solve complex equations. Unfortunatly, I think many CS professors are still locked into the scientific mindset when it comes to computers.
Three things need to happen in order for people to start getting serious about software security and reliability:
1) A software system with 1 or more serious _known_ flaws must be used on a worldwide scale by a government agency or large company.
2) That software must then fail.
3) The failure must cause thousands of deaths or hundreds of billions of dollars in loss or damage.
The result will be like the 9/11 of software...when the world wakes up and realizes that we have become so dependent on software systems for our daily lives that we actually have to start caring whether or not they work correctly. We need to start taking an engineering approach to software and KNOW (not think) that it will operate as advertised.
I'm actually hoping that this will occur sooner than later. The later it happens, the more catastrophic the result will be and the less time we'll have to rectify the problem before it happens again.
There goes my theory about the universal constants containing a message from the Creator of the universe. Guess I'll have to start working on that old universal field theory again.
Privacy is one of those things that geeks pay attention to because they're so acutely aware of how easy it is to lose it and how annoying the ramifications can be. The vast majority of people out there don't care about their privacy because:
a) They're mostly ignorant about what they're giving up, and
b) They're too busy trying to feed and house themselves given all the other shit they have to deal with.
Geeks, on the other hand, are intelligent and have enough free time to sit around and discuss about how they're getting royally fucked over...which, of course, they are. This is why it is our job to inform people whenever possible, and most importantly, supply the tools necessary to protect personal privacy (Ad-Aware, anyone?), and make those tools easy to use for the poor schmucks out there who don't have time to worry about it.
I've gotten to the point where no news of Microsoft's misdeeds would shock me anymore.
Microsoft is cutting up babies to make their user manuals! So what.
They're attempting to terraform the earth's atmosphere to more closely resemble Bill Gates' home planet! Big deal.
Steve Ballmer has Stalin's brain implanted into his skull to make him a more effective leader! What else is new.....
Seriously, anything you could say about something evil that Microsoft does...I wouldn't disbelieve it. I don't know if this speaks more about Microsoft's trashed reputation, or my jaded attitude toward MegaCorp(tm) style policies.
These guysuse openGL to speed up video compositing (to the point where it's real time!). It's interesting to see what is esentially gaming hardware used for professional video production.
Two Words: Flux Capacitor
I've always seen on EULA's something to the effect of: "If you cannot accept this agreement, please return this product to the retailer you purchaced it from". Has anyone ever actually done this?...Returned opened software saying 'I couldn't accept the license agreement'? Could you use this as a way to get around the Windows tax on new PCs?
The sad thing is, as long as congress keeps passing ridiculous laws like the DMCA, the RIAA will have an argument for the formation of these ridiculous law enforcement groups. The problem here is not that the RIAA wants it's own secret police, but that the laws exist that give those police a job to do.
However, when when the IP spooks start knocking on the doors of well meaning people everywhere demanding that they uninstall Kazaa or have their computer seized, maybe we can get the grass-roots support to get these laws repealed.