The new Internet Explorer is coming (at some point). Regardless of ones affinity or lack-there-of for the current iteration of IE, IE7 is sure to hold some major improvements. I dare say it might even be a good browser.
Does Mozilla have a plan of any form for weathering IE7's release? With the practice of bundling the browser with the OS, how on earth can Mozilla compete (assuming IE7 holds the major feature enhancements that it needs so badly)?
Im not sure about that. I'm taking a wild guess, but I believe they simply start propogating out from all scribbles, so that, as the growth of two colors approach each other, the stronger one wins out. The wand tool in photoshop starts only from the point you click (rather than the 10+ scribbles in this algorithm). There's no competing areas of propagation.
Create a magic wand tool that requires multiple clicks on the various regions of the image and you'd have pretty good results.
If you load up page and watch the very last video, can see a slight artifact in the reflection of the hanging stuffed animal. There's little spots of orange color, like you would get out of the AirCan tool in MSPaint.
I have a feeling this could be corrected with another scribble or two. Really a stunning piece of work. Very cool.
Application development is not about GUI's - save that for a GUI book. A GUI is just a front end to the application work horse. Pipes, regex, etc are all "fundamentals", you're right. And that's what this book is. It teaches you the basis for creating applications that work in Linux. Use it as a push of point to create more effective programs to which you can attach you're windows, buttons, event watchers, graphics, etc.
it also gives intruders/managers/employees/anyone with something to hide the ability to search and remove incriminating logs. Thanks EFF!
don't give them root/admin access - i.e. don't give them permission to delete the logs.
A Thumb Drive Raid Array
on
iPod Shuffle RAID
·
· Score: 3, Interesting
I really don't want to be a troll, but this seems rather inane to me. They made a RAID array from a bunch of thumb drives - so what? If they had installed OSX on it, then maybe, but for now, can't we limit slashdot to innovative and never-before-seen things?
That seems a bit extreme. Some days I launch my email app right away. Other times I log in, then start ruffling through my papers and/or talking to my coworker's/boss before I actually get to business.
It seems you would need mutliple inconsistencies before you could make the call. That's why I mention that they will have time to run around doing malicious mischeif.
Maybe I'm missing something. If you are going to compare usage of the system to see if the user is doing something unusual, don't you have to let them use the computer for a little while before you can make that call? If a malicious user was logged into someone elses account, they would still have plenty of time to do harm before an algorithm could definitively say they weren't who they said they were. Am I wrong?
I like it. The one comment I have from watching the videos is that it seems a bit obnoxious the way the you restore a window to normal size. The windows zoom all the way in (fullscreen) and then restore themselves - instead of simply zooming to the appropriate size.
I just gave that as an example. Assuming every digit occurs with the same frequency (which I'm pretty sure it does, or near it) you'd end up with a bunch of 4 bit codes for each digit, instead of 8 - much like the BCD compression you suggest.
If each digit is was stored as ascii, you could use a Huffman code (the basic zip encoding) to shrink it down. This returns a result much like you suggested. If for those not familiar with Huffman Codes, I'll give a quick and dirty summary:
Say each char takes 8 bytes but, in this case, you're only using 10 chars, so you don't need 8 bytes to represent it all. Huffman codes do a quick count of character frequencies and create tree of shorter bit representations for each character. Characters that have a higher frequence (say the number 0 occurred a lot) are given a shorter code. A tree is used to mantain uniqueness so that no ambiguity occurs. For instance:
Not so much a gaming artifact, but back when I was in High School, I had a phase where Edit->Undo was the first thing to come to mind when I made a mistake. A bad grade on a paper, a embarassing mmoment (I had plenty), losing at one of my races, anything really. And everytime I did it I would think to myself "I am such a freaking nerd" right after.
You assume that RFID's are integrated into the product itself. Asside from one exception I can think of (DVD's) this doesn't happen. Bar codes and Ink Tags (anti-thef devices) are completely external to the clothing. Procucts that are bought in boxes are not themselves labeled with the stores mark.
As for tracking clothing (if for some assinine reason the RFID's are not removed from the clothing), I suppose that could be an invasion of one's privacy assuming stores wanted to waste money on tracking customers. RFID's are short range - you could track a customer when the entered easily enough, but following them through a store would (I think) require such an abundance of RFID readers as to preven the venture from being worthwhile.
At worst, a mall could track customers as they ventured from store to store, assuming that stores were interseted in joining forces to share RFID data in real time with the mall in question - an unlikely scenario as the costs, again, would be prohibitive. If they wanted to, they could already attempt to implement this in a limited fashion by tracking credit card purchases around the mall, and I don't believe they do that. While I suppose, implemented, this is an invasion of privacy, I don't fear it.
As for cell phones, that is and issue that I would be worried about, since more and more people carry cell's, they are uniquely identifiable, and rely on a single source for tracking (see my previous comment about personal identification.) This is not, however, RFID.
No, we don't have to wait for abuse. What I am asking for is an example of how it can be abused. Once you leave the store with the RFID, how in the hell are they going to track you?
In response to your loyalty card tracking, RFID's do not facilitate this any more than barcodes. Just because I purchase a product with an RFID does not mean that the store miraculously knows who I am, (especially if I pay with cash.) If I return to the store and buy another product, RFID, in and of itself, does not enable them to recall that I bought a different product earlier on. Unless I carry some personal identification which I reveal to them, such tracking is impossible.
Personal RFID is not what's at question in this article.
You say this, but you provide no proof or examples of the rampant abuse you so disdain. If you're going to make far reaching claims like this, don't expect people to take them to heart without facts backing it up.
While I might concur that RFID has potential for abuse, I must say that I have been quite happy with it when I do use it (access cards etc.) I also personally believe that it is much harder and impractical to implement these "tracking" methods/. so commonly fears. Most RFID generally has a range of a meter or two (at most.) How are they going to track you once you leave the store? It would be ludicrous (and legally impossible) to set up readers along public sidewalks and inside public buildings.
Just to be sure, doesn't windows include a GUI and Web browser in their kernel/OS - addning several thousand lines of code to the count? (Also great places to find bugs.)
Slashdot Mirror
The new Internet Explorer is coming (at some point). Regardless of ones affinity or lack-there-of for the current iteration of IE, IE7 is sure to hold some major improvements. I dare say it might even be a good browser.
Does Mozilla have a plan of any form for weathering IE7's release? With the practice of bundling the browser with the OS, how on earth can Mozilla compete (assuming IE7 holds the major feature enhancements that it needs so badly)?
Im not sure about that. I'm taking a wild guess, but I believe they simply start propogating out from all scribbles, so that, as the growth of two colors approach each other, the stronger one wins out. The wand tool in photoshop starts only from the point you click (rather than the 10+ scribbles in this algorithm). There's no competing areas of propagation.
Create a magic wand tool that requires multiple clicks on the various regions of the image and you'd have pretty good results.
If you load up page and watch the very last video, can see a slight artifact in the reflection of the hanging stuffed animal. There's little spots of orange color, like you would get out of the AirCan tool in MSPaint.
I have a feeling this could be corrected with another scribble or two. Really a stunning piece of work. Very cool.
They link to a Source Forge Gallery of screenshots. They also warn that there are spoilers in the gallery.
well, I didn't know that actually. Thanks for pointing them out. (I never claimed to be 'so informed'.)
for the love of god, please please please let this happen. just this once let a good bill pass.
I didn't know about it.
Application development is not about GUI's - save that for a GUI book. A GUI is just a front end to the application work horse. Pipes, regex, etc are all "fundamentals", you're right. And that's what this book is. It teaches you the basis for creating applications that work in Linux. Use it as a push of point to create more effective programs to which you can attach you're windows, buttons, event watchers, graphics, etc.
it also gives intruders/managers/employees/anyone with something to hide the ability to search and remove incriminating logs. Thanks EFF!
don't give them root/admin access - i.e. don't give them permission to delete the logs.
I really don't want to be a troll, but this seems rather inane to me. They made a RAID array from a bunch of thumb drives - so what? If they had installed OSX on it, then maybe, but for now, can't we limit slashdot to innovative and never-before-seen things?
Interesting. I didn't think about it at that level. I have heard that the differences in the way we type are measurable.
That seems a bit extreme. Some days I launch my email app right away. Other times I log in, then start ruffling through my papers and/or talking to my coworker's/boss before I actually get to business.
It seems you would need mutliple inconsistencies before you could make the call. That's why I mention that they will have time to run around doing malicious mischeif.
Maybe I'm missing something. If you are going to compare usage of the system to see if the user is doing something unusual, don't you have to let them use the computer for a little while before you can make that call? If a malicious user was logged into someone elses account, they would still have plenty of time to do harm before an algorithm could definitively say they weren't who they said they were. Am I wrong?
I like it. The one comment I have from watching the videos is that it seems a bit obnoxious the way the you restore a window to normal size. The windows zoom all the way in (fullscreen) and then restore themselves - instead of simply zooming to the appropriate size.
I just gave that as an example. Assuming every digit occurs with the same frequency (which I'm pretty sure it does, or near it) you'd end up with a bunch of 4 bit codes for each digit, instead of 8 - much like the BCD compression you suggest.
Right, not giving the lookup table I used. But it would still give you a tree that would use less bits per number (i.e. 4 bits [0-16] instead of 8)
If each digit is was stored as ascii, you could use a Huffman code (the basic zip encoding) to shrink it down. This returns a result much like you suggested. If for those not familiar with Huffman Codes, I'll give a quick and dirty summary:
Say each char takes 8 bytes but, in this case, you're only using 10 chars, so you don't need 8 bytes to represent it all. Huffman codes do a quick count of character frequencies and create tree of shorter bit representations for each character. Characters that have a higher frequence (say the number 0 occurred a lot) are given a shorter code. A tree is used to mantain uniqueness so that no ambiguity occurs. For instance:
0 - 0
1 - 100
2 - 101
3 - 11000
4 - 11001
5 - 11010
6 - 11011
7 - 11100
8 - 11101
9 - 11110
If I give you the bits "011000101" you can translate that to "0 - 3 - 2". Use google for those who want to learn more.
The '3' will be included in the expansion pack, slated for release in early 2006.
Not a chance that's him. Doesn't look enough like other pics I've seen. I could be wrong, bu I would say its a look-a-like.
Not so much a gaming artifact, but back when I was in High School, I had a phase where Edit->Undo was the first thing to come to mind when I made a mistake. A bad grade on a paper, a embarassing mmoment (I had plenty), losing at one of my races, anything really. And everytime I did it I would think to myself "I am such a freaking nerd" right after.
You assume that RFID's are integrated into the product itself. Asside from one exception I can think of (DVD's) this doesn't happen. Bar codes and Ink Tags (anti-thef devices) are completely external to the clothing. Procucts that are bought in boxes are not themselves labeled with the stores mark.
As for tracking clothing (if for some assinine reason the RFID's are not removed from the clothing), I suppose that could be an invasion of one's privacy assuming stores wanted to waste money on tracking customers. RFID's are short range - you could track a customer when the entered easily enough, but following them through a store would (I think) require such an abundance of RFID readers as to preven the venture from being worthwhile.
At worst, a mall could track customers as they ventured from store to store, assuming that stores were interseted in joining forces to share RFID data in real time with the mall in question - an unlikely scenario as the costs, again, would be prohibitive. If they wanted to, they could already attempt to implement this in a limited fashion by tracking credit card purchases around the mall, and I don't believe they do that. While I suppose, implemented, this is an invasion of privacy, I don't fear it.
As for cell phones, that is and issue that I would be worried about, since more and more people carry cell's, they are uniquely identifiable, and rely on a single source for tracking (see my previous comment about personal identification.) This is not, however, RFID.
No, we don't have to wait for abuse. What I am asking for is an example of how it can be abused. Once you leave the store with the RFID, how in the hell are they going to track you?
In response to your loyalty card tracking, RFID's do not facilitate this any more than barcodes. Just because I purchase a product with an RFID does not mean that the store miraculously knows who I am, (especially if I pay with cash.) If I return to the store and buy another product, RFID, in and of itself, does not enable them to recall that I bought a different product earlier on. Unless I carry some personal identification which I reveal to them, such tracking is impossible.
Personal RFID is not what's at question in this article.
You say this, but you provide no proof or examples of the rampant abuse you so disdain. If you're going to make far reaching claims like this, don't expect people to take them to heart without facts backing it up.
/. so commonly fears. Most RFID generally has a range of a meter or two (at most.) How are they going to track you once you leave the store? It would be ludicrous (and legally impossible) to set up readers along public sidewalks and inside public buildings.
While I might concur that RFID has potential for abuse, I must say that I have been quite happy with it when I do use it (access cards etc.) I also personally believe that it is much harder and impractical to implement these "tracking" methods
SAP is #3, Symantec will now rank #4
Just to be sure, doesn't windows include a GUI and Web browser in their kernel/OS - addning several thousand lines of code to the count? (Also great places to find bugs.)