Just grab a computer and stick 3 video cards in it. Configure X to run multihead and then use mplayer or xine or totem to send the videos to your 3 monitors. If you want to be really cool, you could use gstreamer to build a custom app pretty quickly that sent 3 separate video streams to 3 different monitors and kept everything synchronized with a single point of control.
You win the prize! -most helpful and insightful post in this thread-
What's left to do? Make a theme? Can't I just install an AOL theme? Isn't this just a marketing thing? Well, at least there'll be dozens of coffee cup coasters out there with Netscape ala Firefox ala AOL on it.
In one measure the goal of security is to make things hard for people. Specifically, it should make things extremely hard for Bad People (tm) and not too hard for Good People (tm). The purpose of the security system is to distinguish who is a "Good Guy" and who is a "Bad Guy" as defined by whomever set down the system.
In the most abstract sense we could be talking about remote programs, real world human users, or virus-like programs.
However, I think that in this situation, "usability" is defined as how easy it is to use for the person who owns or is legally allowed to use the computer.
That is a completely arbitrary distinction simmilar to distingishing between English speaking and French speaking computer users. As far as any given computer system is concerned there's no difference between a virus, a daemon, or a human user. The purpose of a security system is to distinguish "Good Users" from "Bad Users" and thus the whole capability of a security system is to distinguish between users.
That's the whole point. So defining "usability" as "for the person who owns... blah blah" is counter-productive. We might as well say "usability" is defined as "for the person who likes our computer company and pays us the right fees"
You're computer isn't very usable if it gets polluted by viruses:)
The viruses are users too. Meaning that a perfectly insecure system is very easy to use. Easy for the attacker to use. We didn't specify who was supposed to use the system did we?
The point of security is to make things hard to use. Hard to use for specific users. In this case we want a system that is easy for humans to use but hard for viruses to use. So we want to make things easy for "Good Users" and hard for "Bad Users"...
In your bitTorrent setup you've made it hard to use for attackers who want to get at other ports on your system. You've made life hard for "Bad Users" and not too hard for "Good Users" and that's the challenge of security.
I called it the Security to Convenience scale. Where 10 is perfectly secure and 1 is perfectly easy to use. However, in this notion security features can be seen as usability bugs.
I've already discussed this humorously here. The point being that if you really want to you can see things like BSODs as security features. Difficulty in configuration can be seen as a usability feature because it prevents security.
If you squint hard enough all bugs are features and all features are bugs. This view point is utterly useless in the real world, however, strangely orthogonal it may be. It still bears thought for the system designer to consider that his perfectly secure system may render the system so close to useless as to make it practically so... and thus cost him his job either directly or indirectly.
Yeah, I know I'm about to get moderated as redundant.
It's actually a fine Disney tradition NOT to read the book the movie's about. It's supposed to help the artists be more creative. Supposed to help them think "Disney"... personally I think it helps them act like morons. But, hey... look at how fantastic and historically accurate Pocahontas was, or how true to the French tragic spirit Little Mermaid came to be, or Beauty and the Beast?
True Guide fans will be disappointed by the Disney product... but kids everywhere will love it. Just like they loved "Treasure Planet" which was so very accurate to the classic and the book, right?
So, the Department of homeland Security was created to simplify, organize and streamline the process of securing our homeland. Trademark violation falls under their purview now and as any newly minted, efficient government organization worth it's salt would do, they send two agents to a little toy store to scare the crap out of a shopkeeper when a simple stamp, envelope, and letterhead with the words "Cease and Desist" typed on them would have done the trick. Homeland security, why spend $0.50 when $5,000.00 will scare our citizens even more!
Prank.
I think this was a prank. How do you know that the person is from "Home Land Security" or not? How do you know any credentials they produce are valid? So I say this was a prank. Why can't I walk into a store wearing a black suit and say, "I'm from Home Land Security, all your toilets must have a rubber duckie on the tank or terrorists will blow up the building. Now make with the duckies or I'm shutting you all down!"
From the detail in the article it sounds like the gal just heard "Home Land Security" and caved. Naturally, could you really blame her?
Stop terrorism? This thing sounds like an act of terrorism. I'm going to need more proof that this actually happened. This must be a prank.
Using this technology on source code (for instance) would be an extremely bad thing since it would encourage cut-and-paste or copy-and-mutate approaches to coding. The result would be highly regular and poorly factored source. But, I don't think anyone was actually suggesting this for program code... just a thought.
You're the one who was claiming that Microsoft employee Larry Osterman was the one who invented the Apache vs. IIS stats, and the IE vs. other browsers error stats.
I didn't mean to insinuate he invented the stats. I did mean to insinuate that the stats are biased. And yes, I know I'm biased. That's why my Reality Distortion field is up!
You however are just a big jerk. Wah! I want my mommy! Who thought people on slashdot could be so cruel?
is it the same kind of severity when a mail server from gets "muled" as when a client Email reader leaks private information all over the web? When was the last time a sendmail bug sent people's private files and private information all over the net? OSS bugs aren't even in the same class as MS bugs in this instance.
Is it more severe to hurt a server (but not get out any data) or hurt a client and spill personal data everywhere?
What's going on here is a presentation of facts in a distorted fashion. It is like asking:
Do you support the war in Iraq?
versus
Do you support keeping America safe by going to war in Iraq?
or
Do you support our Troops in Iraq or Terrorists?
By adding a bias into the question answering that you don't support the war in Iraq you are now implying that not supporting the war in Iraq is akin to supporting Terrorists, hating America, or hating our Troops.
While it's not as easy to see in matters like this. The blog in the article is biased. I establish this trend (albeit thinly) by pointing to the earlier postings showing only two flaws in IIS to an uncountable number of flaws in Apache. Then the blogger says, "it goes to show that maybe we really DO understand what we're doing." implying that IIS gets a bad rap, if you look at the numbers it's actually better than Apache.
That is bias. The MSIE superiority at handling "generous" inputs is not a feature... it is a positive side-effect of their "embrace and extend" philosophy. While it is indeed a horrible indictment of Mozilla et al. that they can't handle this simple malformed code... it is no great advantage to MSIE as a browser.
Here's an example of taking facts and over-blowing what they mean:
Using the facts here I'll build the following erroneous argument. The US should model its economy on Uzbekistan's because Uzbekistan has one of the world's lowest unemployment rates.
It is a fact stone, cold, fact that Uzbekistan has nearly no unemployment. It is a stone cold fact that Uzbekistan has nearly public debt. These are elements of great discord in America today.
America has problems with things that Uzbekistan seems to find easy to deal with. Barely any debt or unemployment Uzbekistan must be a paradise to live in. America should be more like Uzbekistan.
But wait. You're not looking at all the facts now are you?
It may be harder to understand these distortions of reality when thinking about computer related things. But, they're there. The plain fact is that perhaps somethings are indeed better about Uzbekistan... but somethings are definately much, much, worse.
I would say the same analogies hold true for MSIE versus Mozilla and Apache versus IIS.
Slashdot Mirror
Eh, split the same video output three ways and use three identical sync-on-green monitors.
Just grab a computer and stick 3 video cards in it. Configure X to run multihead and then use mplayer or xine or totem to send the videos to your 3 monitors. If you want to be really cool, you could use gstreamer to build a custom app pretty quickly that sent 3 separate video streams to 3 different monitors and kept everything synchronized with a single point of control.
You win the prize! -most helpful and insightful post in this thread-
" ... we want developers back on our side. If there's more for us to do, we'll go do it," McNealy added.
... followed by ...
... my colleague and I were ever so gently forced to leave the building.
Sun is just that friendly! Hey, we want you on our side, now get out of here!
What's left to do? Make a theme? Can't I just install an AOL theme? Isn't this just a marketing thing? Well, at least there'll be dozens of coffee cup coasters out there with Netscape ala Firefox ala AOL on it.
No, I'm still alive. Why do you people keep thinking I'm dead? I'm right here! Sheesh.
... "LI-LO Silver! Away!"
Zarf, aka "The Lone Coder" and his faithful steed "Silver"
to my plan for world domination involving hoards of robotic insects! WiiGii!
In one measure the goal of security is to make things hard for people. Specifically, it should make things extremely hard for Bad People (tm) and not too hard for Good People (tm). The purpose of the security system is to distinguish who is a "Good Guy" and who is a "Bad Guy" as defined by whomever set down the system.
In the most abstract sense we could be talking about remote programs, real world human users, or virus-like programs.
However, I think that in this situation, "usability" is defined as how easy it is to use for the person who owns or is legally allowed to use the computer.
... blah blah" is counter-productive. We might as well say "usability" is defined as "for the person who likes our computer company and pays us the right fees"
That is a completely arbitrary distinction simmilar to distingishing between English speaking and French speaking computer users. As far as any given computer system is concerned there's no difference between a virus, a daemon, or a human user. The purpose of a security system is to distinguish "Good Users" from "Bad Users" and thus the whole capability of a security system is to distinguish between users.
That's the whole point. So defining "usability" as "for the person who owns
You're computer isn't very usable if it gets polluted by viruses :)
...
The viruses are users too. Meaning that a perfectly insecure system is very easy to use. Easy for the attacker to use. We didn't specify who was supposed to use the system did we?
The point of security is to make things hard to use. Hard to use for specific users. In this case we want a system that is easy for humans to use but hard for viruses to use. So we want to make things easy for "Good Users" and hard for "Bad Users"
In your bitTorrent setup you've made it hard to use for attackers who want to get at other ports on your system. You've made life hard for "Bad Users" and not too hard for "Good Users" and that's the challenge of security.
I called it the Security to Convenience scale. Where 10 is perfectly secure and 1 is perfectly easy to use. However, in this notion security features can be seen as usability bugs.
I've already discussed this humorously here. The point being that if you really want to you can see things like BSODs as security features. Difficulty in configuration can be seen as a usability feature because it prevents security.
If you squint hard enough all bugs are features and all features are bugs. This view point is utterly useless in the real world, however, strangely orthogonal it may be. It still bears thought for the system designer to consider that his perfectly secure system may render the system so close to useless as to make it practically so... and thus cost him his job either directly or indirectly.
Yeah, I know I'm about to get moderated as redundant.
... personally I think it helps them act like morons. But, hey... look at how fantastic and historically accurate Pocahontas was, or how true to the French tragic spirit Little Mermaid came to be, or Beauty and the Beast?
It's actually a fine Disney tradition NOT to read the book the movie's about. It's supposed to help the artists be more creative. Supposed to help them think "Disney"
True Guide fans will be disappointed by the Disney product... but kids everywhere will love it. Just like they loved "Treasure Planet" which was so very accurate to the classic and the book, right?
Sort of turning google into a custom portal instead of just a vanilla search engine.
No really. I use google.
business deals are the problem. You need to make the right business deals with the right people. Get on that okay?
I've managed to download a copy and order a t-shirt and the site isn't slashdotted yet. What are you all asleep or something?
So, the Department of homeland Security was created to simplify, organize and streamline the process of securing our homeland. Trademark violation falls under their purview now and as any newly minted, efficient government organization worth it's salt would do, they send two agents to a little toy store to scare the crap out of a shopkeeper when a simple stamp, envelope, and letterhead with the words "Cease and Desist" typed on them would have done the trick. Homeland security, why spend $0.50 when $5,000.00 will scare our citizens even more!
Prank.
I think this was a prank. How do you know that the person is from "Home Land Security" or not? How do you know any credentials they produce are valid? So I say this was a prank. Why can't I walk into a store wearing a black suit and say, "I'm from Home Land Security, all your toilets must have a rubber duckie on the tank or terrorists will blow up the building. Now make with the duckies or I'm shutting you all down!"
From the detail in the article it sounds like the gal just heard "Home Land Security" and caved. Naturally, could you really blame her?
Stop terrorism? This thing sounds like an act of terrorism. I'm going to need more proof that this actually happened. This must be a prank.
I, for one, welcome our new trademark, copyright, and patent enforcing overlords.
Oh yeah, then there's spit.
> spim is instant messenger spam for anyone confused.
I'm confused why we need another name for a known plague. Spam is Spam.
Rather, spim is spam. But, spam isn't quite spim. So it could be said that spam spans spim but spim doesn't span spam.
Cell phone spam is known as spem, and telephone spam (aka crank calls) is called spham. No really.
Spam on TV is called Stam and spam on DVD is called sdam. But spam in mp3's or audio is just called noise.
Using this technology on source code (for instance) would be an extremely bad thing since it would encourage cut-and-paste or copy-and-mutate approaches to coding. The result would be highly regular and poorly factored source. But, I don't think anyone was actually suggesting this for program code... just a thought.
You're the one who was claiming that Microsoft employee Larry Osterman was the one who invented the Apache vs. IIS stats, and the IE vs. other browsers error stats.
I didn't mean to insinuate he invented the stats. I did mean to insinuate that the stats are biased. And yes, I know I'm biased. That's why my Reality Distortion field is up!
You however are just a big jerk. Wah! I want my mommy! Who thought people on slashdot could be so cruel?
Oh, and by the way... you are biased too...
You must be new hear.
No, I'm just horribly sarcastic.
You: They are rich because of their ability to create an industry-wide vendor lock-in.
Me:They'll have all the deals locked in from server to client. They'll totally shut out HDTV over IP competition before it gets born.
Don't kid yourself.
I'm not, I'm kidding you.
It's okay, I don't always read what I'm responding to either. BTW: Check out my UID... it ROCKS!
is it the same kind of severity when a mail server from gets "muled" as when a client Email reader leaks private information all over the web? When was the last time a sendmail bug sent people's private files and private information all over the net? OSS bugs aren't even in the same class as MS bugs in this instance.
Is it more severe to hurt a server (but not get out any data) or hurt a client and spill personal data everywhere?
What's going on here is a presentation of facts in a distorted fashion. It is like asking:
o rder/2129rank.html
http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/ranko rder/2186rank.html
Do you support the war in Iraq?
versus
Do you support keeping America safe by going to war in Iraq?
or
Do you support our Troops in Iraq or Terrorists?
By adding a bias into the question answering that you don't support the war in Iraq you are now implying that not supporting the war in Iraq is akin to supporting Terrorists, hating America, or hating our Troops.
While it's not as easy to see in matters like this. The blog in the article is biased. I establish this trend (albeit thinly) by pointing to the earlier postings showing only two flaws in IIS to an uncountable number of flaws in Apache. Then the blogger says, "it goes to show that maybe we really DO understand what we're doing." implying that IIS gets a bad rap, if you look at the numbers it's actually better than Apache.
That is bias. The MSIE superiority at handling "generous" inputs is not a feature... it is a positive side-effect of their "embrace and extend" philosophy. While it is indeed a horrible indictment of Mozilla et al. that they can't handle this simple malformed code... it is no great advantage to MSIE as a browser.
Here's an example of taking facts and over-blowing what they mean:
Reference: http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/rank
Using the facts here I'll build the following erroneous argument. The US should model its economy on Uzbekistan's because Uzbekistan has one of the world's lowest unemployment rates.
It is a fact stone, cold, fact that Uzbekistan has nearly no unemployment. It is a stone cold fact that Uzbekistan has nearly public debt. These are elements of great discord in America today.
America has problems with things that Uzbekistan seems to find easy to deal with. Barely any debt or unemployment Uzbekistan must be a paradise to live in. America should be more like Uzbekistan.
But wait. You're not looking at all the facts now are you?
It may be harder to understand these distortions of reality when thinking about computer related things. But, they're there. The plain fact is that perhaps somethings are indeed better about Uzbekistan... but somethings are definately much, much, worse.
I would say the same analogies hold true for MSIE versus Mozilla and Apache versus IIS.
Some people are biased. Their views of reality are distorted.