You are on the right track, though. Software could be developed to look for large differences that last only a few frames and flag them. The offending frames could be removed or fixed manually.
I doubt they are looking for you and your video camara. What they do want to find are the people borrowing/stealing the reels and doing a more professional job.
The article does not say the blotches are used to screw up compression to ruin the film for pirates, as the slashdot summary suggests. Rather, it is just 20-year old "cap code" technology enlarged to be more easily visible in high-compressed pirated copies.
Cap code was "designed to uniquely mark film prints so that pirated copies could be traced to the source." Originially the dots were small enough that compression obscured them out of usability.
I've seen some pirated movies, and in my opinion, a few splotches on a few frames isn't going to screw them up a whole lot. They already tend to look and sound bad.
Well said. Probably the most informed reply I've seen yet. Not that I agree with everything you said, in particular the protection of telemarketers' free speech. But that aside:
I have a fundamental problem with the enactment of laws to fix things that people should be fixing for themselves. A legistlated DNC list with penalties attached is a perfect example of this. I won't go over the possible solutions again, we've all seen them before.
Anytime the government gets involved, quagmires tend to result. Who gets punished? Who should receive exceptions? What's the fine? Who gets the money? What about the veracity of the list, I mean, did Mr. Bill really add his own name or was it forged? This all takes a whole lot of time and money to solve. And it's all a waste because there are already ways for me to solve it on my own.
Now while this SEEMS to be a solution, what about telemarketers calling you incessantly ?
Really, has this happened to you? Do you know anyone that has had this happen? If not, stop using the "take it to the edge" strategy and stick with reality.
The question is, is calling the ATA as protected as the right they claim to call others.
As far as I'm aware, making a single call to the ATA, even if it is in conjunction with thousands of others as part of a malicious "slashdotting" campaign, is completely legal. At no point in my comments did I ever state otherwise. What I said is that it is malicious and wrong if done for the sole purpose of, say, "phone griefing".
Just because an action is within your rights doesn't make it right.
I just went back and read some of the top-moderated posts under this article. Quite a few of them illustrate the behaviour I was railing against. Don't pretend you didn't see it.
This isn't harassment. This is the American People(tm) making a democratic choice to call and offer their First Amendment right to make their voice heard
You, like many others, have taken my comments out of context. If this happens again I'll make sure I include more context; it was wrong of me to assume everyone saw the same comments as I did...although the original article implied enough in my opinion.
Several people replied to the article stating that everyone should call the ATA again to cause them more trouble. This was not the first time this had happened. There was no desire here to politely state an opinion, but rather to cause problems. "Let's call them so many times that they have to cancel their new number! Bwahahahaha! I'll set up an auto-dial on my cell phone!"
It's me making my voice heard, and until someone abolishes the First Amendment we are more than welcome to do things such as this.
I agree, you have every right to do things such as this. Nowhere in my comments did I say it was illegal or outside your rights. I said it is malicious and wrong.
Since they are calling us, a mandatory do not call list (national or otherwise) is our only real way of refusing to listen to their speech.
You don't have to listen just because they call. You have a number of options:
Don't answer
Hang up
Block the call (several devices exist on the market to do this)
Use a cell phone and cancel your phone service. Most telemarketers avoid calling cell phones. (For now at least.)
Don't make me solve your problems. Don't make the government solve your problems. This "they are making me listen to them" whining plays right into the hands of people who would just love to run every element of your life.
So you feel that the only Constitutionally protected form of speech should be commercial speech where the caller is trying to sell something?
I didn't say that. Nowhere did I claim that participating in the "slashdotting" of the ATA is illegal, or that you have no right to do it. I said that it is wrong to participate in such a destructive and malicious activity.
While my father was dying of cancer and I was awaiting "the call", I got a call from some jackass wanting to sell me vinyl replacement windows.
I'm sorry for your loss. I'm sure the individual who called you would have been sorry as well if they knew.
When I was working night-shift testing satellites, I got multiple calls during the day from telemarketers who woke me up and kept me from getting adequate sleep.
Don't answer the phone. Unplug it. Why is this such a difficult concept for people? Why does a ringing phone provoke such a pavlovian response?
You've got a screwed up set of priorities.
I don't appreciate telemarketers any more than you do. What I have a problem with is the constitutionality of the law surrounding the DNC list. Why should a class of people be prohibited from calling you, but anyone else is free to call you? Do you realize that you can still be called by charities and policiticians under the currently proposed law? How is it right to deny free speech to some people, but not others?
I'm not just talking about money. If I meant "money" I would not have said "resources." The more time my representatives spend dealing with out-of-state "slashdotting" the less time they spend listening to their constituents.
Ever been a member of a PAC, such as the NRA or the ACLU? In my experience, these very political groups urge their members to contact only their representatives. When a representative does not "vote correctly" the PAC instructs only members of that representative's state to make contact.
How about publishing the numbers of those congressmen who voted against DNC list?
I assume your intent is to maliciously "slashdot" them. If they are not your congressmen, you have no business calling them in this fasion.
Two of my congressmen voted the way I hoped they would vote. If people in my state don't like it, they should be calling them, since they are being represented. I'm willing to bet that your congresspeople voted according to your desires. Don't waste my state's resources with your harassment, please.
It is disgusting how easily people revert to mob behavior.
When you pick up the phone to call ATA, what you are doing is harassment. You have nothing to sell them. In fact, you would almost certainly (with few exceptions) not be calling them unless you knew that thousands of your peers would also be calling. You hope that your actions will cause problems for the ATA. You are participating in mob behavior.
By contrast, when a telemarketer calls you, they hope to sell you something. They have had success in this activity in the past, otherwise they would not try; the phone call costs money, as does the equipment, space, human resources staff, benefits, management, etc, not to mention the wages of those making the calls. They are not doing this to make you mad. They don't want to interrupt your dinner. If they could catch you at your most inconvenient time, they would. In fact, if they could tell without having to call that you were not interested, they would not make the call.
I personally know an individual (a dentist) who has successfully used telemarketing. He employs one woman who works from home cold-calling people to get their teeth cleaned. Telemarketing has been the most successful method of getting new patients that he has ever tried. Additionally, the woman doing the job benefits from well paying at-home employment.
I am not opposed to a Do Not Call list. I am, however, very much opposed to the legislation of said list. And I am opposed to the kind of mob behavior that caused the ATA to disconnect their phone line.
And don't bother comparing this to calling your congressperson, they are supposed to hear from you and have budgets and staff explicitely for this purpose. Be honest now. If you called the ATA you weren't really trying to give them any information or state an opinion, you just wanted to inconvenience them. You were just happy for an opportunity to retaliate.
Folks, RIAA has not issued these subpeonas, according to the article:
Citing the numeric Internet addresses of music downloaders, the RIAA has said it can only track users by comparing those addresses against subscriber records held by Internet providers. But the AP used those addresses and other details culled from subpoenas and was able to locate some Internet users who are among the music industry's earliest targets.
Stop with the knee-jerk reactions and read the article more carefully. I'm sick of reading about how RIAA is so evil for going after grandparents, when in reality they have done no such thing...yet.
In fact, I'm a little sickened by the AP; they did RIAA's homework for them by locating these not-quite-victims to get quotes for their story.
But can a booby-trapped compiler binary participate in 'make buildworld'? If so, I'm impressed. If not, I assume you are not poster of the great grandparent article....
Red Hat has not made RHN a useful free tool. I prefer Debian and apt-get. But RHN is nice for remotely patching multiple machines with a button click.
I have to keep a compiler + includes + libraries, etc. on every machine. Not only does this take up more disk space, but I am also offering a potential hacker lots of tools to make mischief. Sure, the hacker can bring the tools over, but that's just more work for the hacker and more opportunity for me to find out about the intrusion.
Are configuration files kept up to date across "make buildworld" invocations? What about new or deprecated config options? Most distributions (Red Hat and Debian, at least) take at least some steps to ensure config files are kept in synch with the binaries.
Not that your solution is bad, there are always tradeoffs. My company is going with Red Hat due to the supportability and RHN infrastructure. My personal favorite Linux distro is Debian, but I could not propose that to the company because there is no official support. I am not going to be the one maintaining the machines, I just engineer the solutions. Perhaps we fall closer to the enterprise line...
As long as you have no official policy forbidding this you can point out that it's just the standard way things are done when working with open source tools.
Sounds like a good way to induce some anti-open-source policy into existance.
Not that I completely disagree with you, I just don't generally have a lot of faith in most management people, as they tend to be of the CYA sort.
We already have something like this. It's called "UDP" and it's TCP without error checking.
Wrong, UDP has error checking, as pointed out in other replies.
The difference between TCP and UDP is that TCP requires a connection to be nailed up to keep track of packets. UDP packets are simply spewed over to the receiver.
If there are errors, they will be caught by the receiver upon checksumming the packet, regardless of whether the packet is TCP or UDP. In TCP, the bad packet is resent. In UDP, the packet never reaches the application, it is discarded at the UDP layer. No bad data is received in either case.
There's no rule that says the UDP sender can't wait for a response and resend as necessary.
The article says "The JBoss Group has been forked." The group, not the code.
The CDN web site puts a lot of emphasis on CVS commit access into various open source projects, include JBoss itself. This does not sound at all like a code fork.
I don't understand why we need a law about this. If somebody calls you and you don't want to talk to them, just *hang up*. Easy. Simple. No legislation. No arguments over who got the 11k for the offense. No tax payer dollars wasted. And really, you aren't offending the sales drone on the other end of the line.
I screen my calls with an answering machine. This technology has been around for, I would guess, decades, and cost me about $50. I have a very short message on it, and everyone who we want to talk to knows that they need to leave a message. I incur ZERO annoyance from telemarketers, unless you count the amusement at having them try to have a conversation with my answering machine.
As far as the OS is concerned, there are two processors running in SMP.
HT isn't really about threads in a single program, it's about any thread that the OS can throw at the CPU. It is not limited to threaded applications; a process is a thread.
So at the worst case, both threads are optimized such that the pipeline would always be full. That's ok, it will be as if one processor executes the threads, one after another. But that never happens. Some instructions within a thread will invariably depend on their predecessors, and that's where HT kicks in. Since the next instruction in thread A depends on the previous instruction, the CPU will simply start the next instruction from thread B, which has no dependency on that previous thread A instruction.
HT uses pipelining better than a compiler could ever dream. Sure, you can come up with some code to challenge that statement, but a vast majority of real-world code must contain dependencies which prevent efficient pipelining.
Slashdot Mirror
Large swaths of colours...like say, a blue sky?
You are on the right track, though. Software could be developed to look for large differences that last only a few frames and flag them. The offending frames could be removed or fixed manually.
I doubt they are looking for you and your video camara. What they do want to find are the people borrowing/stealing the reels and doing a more professional job.
The article does not say the blotches are used to screw up compression to ruin the film for pirates, as the slashdot summary suggests. Rather, it is just 20-year old "cap code" technology enlarged to be more easily visible in high-compressed pirated copies.
Cap code was "designed to uniquely mark film prints so that pirated copies could be traced to the source." Originially the dots were small enough that compression obscured them out of usability.
I've seen some pirated movies, and in my opinion, a few splotches on a few frames isn't going to screw them up a whole lot. They already tend to look and sound bad.
Well said. Probably the most informed reply I've seen yet. Not that I agree with everything you said, in particular the protection of telemarketers' free speech. But that aside:
I have a fundamental problem with the enactment of laws to fix things that people should be fixing for themselves. A legistlated DNC list with penalties attached is a perfect example of this. I won't go over the possible solutions again, we've all seen them before.
Anytime the government gets involved, quagmires tend to result. Who gets punished? Who should receive exceptions? What's the fine? Who gets the money? What about the veracity of the list, I mean, did Mr. Bill really add his own name or was it forged? This all takes a whole lot of time and money to solve. And it's all a waste because there are already ways for me to solve it on my own.
Really, has this happened to you? Do you know anyone that has had this happen? If not, stop using the "take it to the edge" strategy and stick with reality.
As far as I'm aware, making a single call to the ATA, even if it is in conjunction with thousands of others as part of a malicious "slashdotting" campaign, is completely legal. At no point in my comments did I ever state otherwise. What I said is that it is malicious and wrong if done for the sole purpose of, say, "phone griefing".
Just because an action is within your rights doesn't make it right.
I just went back and read some of the top-moderated posts under this article. Quite a few of them illustrate the behaviour I was railing against. Don't pretend you didn't see it.
You, like many others, have taken my comments out of context. If this happens again I'll make sure I include more context; it was wrong of me to assume everyone saw the same comments as I did...although the original article implied enough in my opinion.
Several people replied to the article stating that everyone should call the ATA again to cause them more trouble. This was not the first time this had happened. There was no desire here to politely state an opinion, but rather to cause problems. "Let's call them so many times that they have to cancel their new number! Bwahahahaha! I'll set up an auto-dial on my cell phone!"
It's me making my voice heard, and until someone abolishes the First Amendment we are more than welcome to do things such as this.I agree, you have every right to do things such as this. Nowhere in my comments did I say it was illegal or outside your rights. I said it is malicious and wrong.
You don't have to listen just because they call. You have a number of options:
Don't answer
Hang up
Block the call (several devices exist on the market to do this)
Use a cell phone and cancel your phone service. Most telemarketers avoid calling cell phones. (For now at least.)
Don't make me solve your problems. Don't make the government solve your problems. This "they are making me listen to them" whining plays right into the hands of people who would just love to run every element of your life.
I didn't say that. Nowhere did I claim that participating in the "slashdotting" of the ATA is illegal, or that you have no right to do it. I said that it is wrong to participate in such a destructive and malicious activity.
While my father was dying of cancer and I was awaiting "the call", I got a call from some jackass wanting to sell me vinyl replacement windows.I'm sorry for your loss. I'm sure the individual who called you would have been sorry as well if they knew.
When I was working night-shift testing satellites, I got multiple calls during the day from telemarketers who woke me up and kept me from getting adequate sleep.Don't answer the phone. Unplug it. Why is this such a difficult concept for people? Why does a ringing phone provoke such a pavlovian response?
You've got a screwed up set of priorities.I don't appreciate telemarketers any more than you do. What I have a problem with is the constitutionality of the law surrounding the DNC list. Why should a class of people be prohibited from calling you, but anyone else is free to call you? Do you realize that you can still be called by charities and policiticians under the currently proposed law? How is it right to deny free speech to some people, but not others?
I'm not just talking about money. If I meant "money" I would not have said "resources." The more time my representatives spend dealing with out-of-state "slashdotting" the less time they spend listening to their constituents.
Ever been a member of a PAC, such as the NRA or the ACLU? In my experience, these very political groups urge their members to contact only their representatives. When a representative does not "vote correctly" the PAC instructs only members of that representative's state to make contact.
I assume your intent is to maliciously "slashdot" them. If they are not your congressmen, you have no business calling them in this fasion.
Two of my congressmen voted the way I hoped they would vote. If people in my state don't like it, they should be calling them, since they are being represented. I'm willing to bet that your congresspeople voted according to your desires. Don't waste my state's resources with your harassment, please.
It is disgusting how easily people revert to mob behavior.
When you pick up the phone to call ATA, what you are doing is harassment. You have nothing to sell them. In fact, you would almost certainly (with few exceptions) not be calling them unless you knew that thousands of your peers would also be calling. You hope that your actions will cause problems for the ATA. You are participating in mob behavior.
By contrast, when a telemarketer calls you, they hope to sell you something. They have had success in this activity in the past, otherwise they would not try; the phone call costs money, as does the equipment, space, human resources staff, benefits, management, etc, not to mention the wages of those making the calls. They are not doing this to make you mad. They don't want to interrupt your dinner. If they could catch you at your most inconvenient time, they would. In fact, if they could tell without having to call that you were not interested, they would not make the call.
I personally know an individual (a dentist) who has successfully used telemarketing. He employs one woman who works from home cold-calling people to get their teeth cleaned. Telemarketing has been the most successful method of getting new patients that he has ever tried. Additionally, the woman doing the job benefits from well paying at-home employment.
I am not opposed to a Do Not Call list. I am, however, very much opposed to the legislation of said list. And I am opposed to the kind of mob behavior that caused the ATA to disconnect their phone line.
And don't bother comparing this to calling your congressperson, they are supposed to hear from you and have budgets and staff explicitely for this purpose. Be honest now. If you called the ATA you weren't really trying to give them any information or state an opinion, you just wanted to inconvenience them. You were just happy for an opportunity to retaliate.
This was a chuckle and a half. I can't understand all you who think it was boring. Apparently the $5 and $10 words scared you off.
I had never seen flyspeck used as a verb before...
Who modded the parent insightful?! Can I get modded up for quoting numbers from my calculator? 2 + 2 = 4 7 * 8 = 56
Folks, RIAA has not issued these subpeonas, according to the article:
Stop with the knee-jerk reactions and read the article more carefully. I'm sick of reading about how RIAA is so evil for going after grandparents, when in reality they have done no such thing...yet.
In fact, I'm a little sickened by the AP; they did RIAA's homework for them by locating these not-quite-victims to get quotes for their story.
The printers come fully inked.
But can a booby-trapped compiler binary participate in 'make buildworld'? If so, I'm impressed. If not, I assume you are not poster of the great grandparent article....
Red Hat has not made RHN a useful free tool. I prefer Debian and apt-get. But RHN is nice for remotely patching multiple machines with a button click.
This approach has a few problems.
I have to keep a compiler + includes + libraries, etc. on every machine. Not only does this take up more disk space, but I am also offering a potential hacker lots of tools to make mischief. Sure, the hacker can bring the tools over, but that's just more work for the hacker and more opportunity for me to find out about the intrusion.
Are configuration files kept up to date across "make buildworld" invocations? What about new or deprecated config options? Most distributions (Red Hat and Debian, at least) take at least some steps to ensure config files are kept in synch with the binaries.
Not that your solution is bad, there are always tradeoffs. My company is going with Red Hat due to the supportability and RHN infrastructure. My personal favorite Linux distro is Debian, but I could not propose that to the company because there is no official support. I am not going to be the one maintaining the machines, I just engineer the solutions. Perhaps we fall closer to the enterprise line...
I've heard it as "ef-suck" or "fisk".
Sounds like a good way to induce some anti-open-source policy into existance.
Not that I completely disagree with you, I just don't generally have a lot of faith in most management people, as they tend to be of the CYA sort.
Wrong, UDP has error checking, as pointed out in other replies.
The difference between TCP and UDP is that TCP requires a connection to be nailed up to keep track of packets. UDP packets are simply spewed over to the receiver.
If there are errors, they will be caught by the receiver upon checksumming the packet, regardless of whether the packet is TCP or UDP. In TCP, the bad packet is resent. In UDP, the packet never reaches the application, it is discarded at the UDP layer. No bad data is received in either case.
There's no rule that says the UDP sender can't wait for a response and resend as necessary.
IP already does this; it's called sliding windows.
The article says "The JBoss Group has been forked." The group, not the code.
The CDN web site puts a lot of emphasis on CVS commit access into various open source projects, include JBoss itself. This does not sound at all like a code fork.
I don't understand why we need a law about this. If somebody calls you and you don't want to talk to them, just *hang up*. Easy. Simple. No legislation. No arguments over who got the 11k for the offense. No tax payer dollars wasted. And really, you aren't offending the sales drone on the other end of the line. I screen my calls with an answering machine. This technology has been around for, I would guess, decades, and cost me about $50. I have a very short message on it, and everyone who we want to talk to knows that they need to leave a message. I incur ZERO annoyance from telemarketers, unless you count the amusement at having them try to have a conversation with my answering machine.
As far as the OS is concerned, there are two processors running in SMP.
HT isn't really about threads in a single program, it's about any thread that the OS can throw at the CPU. It is not limited to threaded applications; a process is a thread.
So at the worst case, both threads are optimized such that the pipeline would always be full. That's ok, it will be as if one processor executes the threads, one after another. But that never happens. Some instructions within a thread will invariably depend on their predecessors, and that's where HT kicks in. Since the next instruction in thread A depends on the previous instruction, the CPU will simply start the next instruction from thread B, which has no dependency on that previous thread A instruction.
HT uses pipelining better than a compiler could ever dream. Sure, you can come up with some code to challenge that statement, but a vast majority of real-world code must contain dependencies which prevent efficient pipelining.