OK, I've got to ask -- in one of the pictures they show the laboratory where they did this, and there are all sorts of shades of purple and blue and other 'cool' colors shining about. Do people really right their labs with these funny lights, or is it done entirely in Photoshop (or gimp) later?
That is what Microsoft's Secured Digial Audio Path is supposed to wipe out -- if the content says 'I need to be secure', Windows won't let you play it through drivers that aren't signed to be compliant.
I've been wishing someone would articulate this for a long time. People always talk about 'if you don't like it, go elsewhere' in many fields -- doing business as a customer and as an employee. It is so true though that if enough entities begin to require something, there is no alternative. Take SSN's: If all movie rental places required SSN's for their application, although you don't *have* to do business with them, there is no place else to go. Starting your own movie chain may not be an option since the movie houses (may, hypothetically) refuse to do business with a chain of less-than X size. Or perhaps they require databases with SSNs in them, and since they are the content providers... you're screwed.
If all employers collude, even if unknowingly (HR dept. reads in a trade magazine how it is 'industry standard' to requre agreement X) there is no real alternative. That is where the 'little people' have to invoke their collective power through the government to force the 'big people' (corps) hand.
Re:Next time you have to go to the bathroom at wor
on
Nike: Just Don't Do It
·
· Score: 1
Won't market forces deal with this evenutally? The problem seems to be that the 'sweatshop' jobs are coveted for their comparatively high income levels and low availability. As more companies do this, the dependance on any one 'sweatshop' will decrease, meaning people will have the option of changing jobs, which means the really bad employers won't be able to hire people as readily and will have to improve their conditions?
Evidently you haven't heard of the 'earliest exit' form of tech support generally instilled in call centers -- get the person off the phone as fas as possible, *not* as happy as possible.
Re:...but will it keep up with the upgrades?
on
Laser-equipped 747
·
· Score: 1
Situations like that always sound odd. So, the premise was good but because of a quirk in the input data, the neural net was incorrectly trained. This doesn't mean it can't be trained correctly, just that you have to provide good input data. So why cancel a promising project because of one failure? Reminds me of all the times Wiley Coyote gave up on using a trap or something, merely because it failed once -- usually due to him tripping over a cord or something. No patience for failure at all.
I put forward this suggestion soley as a way to fix the problem of doing a blanket restore, which would wipe out the achivements of those who haven't died, and doing no restore, which would leave those people who died -- dead.
Obviously this would only be a short-term 'deal' to get back to the pre-disaster state.
It seems that they could create a webpage where one enters those three datums and have your character restored, which balances the needs of the people who don't want to be restored and the people who do.
This is exactly the analogy that is needed. I can imagine thousands of bean-counters now wishing they had ix-nayed the y2k compliance expenses, since it is obvious (sic) that it wasn't needed, seeing as how there weren't any significant problems. Of course, in the alternate reality where the y2k expenses were all nixed, there was great chaos when many of the computer programs failed.
Many people think that y2k was a 'flop', yet if there hadn't been attention drawn to it, it very well may have been a problem.
I have faith that those of us who don't trust them now would be sure to point out the contradiction to all who did should such an occurence come to pass.
True, MS could start blaming bugs on that hacker. However, they have stated that no source code was changed. If they turn around and start blaming bugs on the hackers, the confidence in their products will plument drastically.
This is exactly what I would like to see. Say I am on a low-rate DSL hookup, my roomate is downloading a large game demo, and I am trying to do some remote administration of a box. The download is sucking up all the bandwidth. It would be great if I could mark the ssh packets as a higher priority, this allowing me to do some useful work and a realtively decent speed while the download continues. Linux has a sort of method for doing this (the TC command) but the documentation on how to 'reserve' a certain amount of bandwidth for certain types of packets is pretty bad, and the system doesn't seem to be able to handle dialup speeds either.
Plus, on a larger scale, it would be nice if routers honored the QoS (or just the ToS) bits for that matter, so interactive apps could win out over batch-type apps.
Now that is an exceedingly good point. I have long pondered on how this works in the 'real world'. In theory, every corporation that has two disparate links to the rest of the world should be capeable of carrying transit traffic, yet with all the hard-nosed routing and firewalling, they have this redunancy turned off. How many corporations have more than one firewall to the real world? They might have a pan-world network, but all their outgoing traffic goes through just one machine. You can bet that their huge network *isn't* carrying someone else's traffic.
See "The Millenial Project" by Marshall T. Savage; he goes in to great detail about how such a thing could be implemented and used to launch humanity in to space.
Well, in all likelihood you would have problems if you installed O2K on you machine -- you'd end up expecting everyone to be able to read your files. Linux (and the accompanying applications) means that the onus to convert files is on *you*, and you won't go crying to Tech Support if it doesn't work.
It occurs to me that people who might be affected by this, ie people who run this bad daemon, will quickly be fixed since it is the daemon responsible for updating the system. If they are running it, it will update itself. Thus the problem should be short lived.
Already done: The PGP Digital Timestamping Service will let you email it anything, (such as just a hash, or the whole file if you are brave) and will return a timestamped hash of it. It posts the hashes (never the original) to usenet and keeps them in it's own archive for historical tracking.
You can also use it to send the equivalent of a 'certified' email, whereby it will give you a proof-of-posting certificate for a given email. It doesn't guarentee the email was ever received or read, but it could be better than nothing.
I wonder how routing would work if everyone had ethernet strung between their houses. If enough people could run routing daemons, could internet traffic concieveably be routed major distances merely by traveling house-to-house; just going on the backbones long enough to reach another house-cluster?
What about when a script-kiddie who is on a unmetered connection floods your customer; how do you prevent someone else's attack from costing the user money? It is not like they can choose to not receive the traffic.
Slashdot Mirror
Sadly, they tend to be spoiled by the fake this-is-an-image-that-looks-like-a-form, poo-on-you for-clicking-it ads.
This is a very succint description of the problem facing the USPTO right now.
Ahh, but that wasn't actually Slugworth -- it was Wonka's lieutenant. The real slugworth was never seen.
I always thought that was because the engines burnt it all up getting it off the ground; very inefficient at low speeds they were.
OK, I've got to ask -- in one of the pictures they show the laboratory where they did this, and there are all sorts of shades of purple and blue and other 'cool' colors shining about. Do people really right their labs with these funny lights, or is it done entirely in Photoshop (or gimp) later?
That is what Microsoft's Secured Digial Audio Path is supposed to wipe out -- if the content says 'I need to be secure', Windows won't let you play it through drivers that aren't signed to be compliant.
I've been wishing someone would articulate this for a long time. People always talk about 'if you don't like it, go elsewhere' in many fields -- doing business as a customer and as an employee. It is so true though that if enough entities begin to require something, there is no alternative. Take SSN's: If all movie rental places required SSN's for their application, although you don't *have* to do business with them, there is no place else to go. Starting your own movie chain may not be an option since the movie houses (may, hypothetically) refuse to do business with a chain of less-than X size. Or perhaps they require databases with SSNs in them, and since they are the content providers... you're screwed.
If all employers collude, even if unknowingly (HR dept. reads in a trade magazine how it is 'industry standard' to requre agreement X) there is no real alternative. That is where the 'little people' have to invoke their collective power through the government to force the 'big people' (corps) hand.
Won't market forces deal with this evenutally? The problem seems to be that the 'sweatshop' jobs are coveted for their comparatively high income levels and low availability. As more companies do this, the dependance on any one 'sweatshop' will decrease, meaning people will have the option of changing jobs, which means the really bad employers won't be able to hire people as readily and will have to improve their conditions?
Evidently you haven't heard of the 'earliest exit' form of tech support generally instilled in call centers -- get the person off the phone as fas as possible, *not* as happy as possible.
Situations like that always sound odd. So, the premise was good but because of a quirk in the input data, the neural net was incorrectly trained. This doesn't mean it can't be trained correctly, just that you have to provide good input data. So why cancel a promising project because of one failure? Reminds me of all the times Wiley Coyote gave up on using a trap or something, merely because it failed once -- usually due to him tripping over a cord or something. No patience for failure at all.
I put forward this suggestion soley as a way to fix the problem of doing a blanket restore, which would wipe out the achivements of those who haven't died, and doing no restore, which would leave those people who died -- dead.
Obviously this would only be a short-term 'deal' to get back to the pre-disaster state.
It seems that they could create a webpage where one enters those three datums and have your character restored, which balances the needs of the people who don't want to be restored and the people who do.
This is exactly the analogy that is needed. I can imagine thousands of bean-counters now wishing they had ix-nayed the y2k compliance expenses, since it is obvious (sic) that it wasn't needed, seeing as how there weren't any significant problems. Of course, in the alternate reality where the y2k expenses were all nixed, there was great chaos when many of the computer programs failed.
Many people think that y2k was a 'flop', yet if there hadn't been attention drawn to it, it very well may have been a problem.
I believe I saw this on TV; it relies on physical contact with the car and just runs a lot of current through it. More like a stun-gun, not an EMP.
I have faith that those of us who don't trust them now would be sure to point out the contradiction to all who did should such an occurence come to pass.
True, MS could start blaming bugs on that hacker. However, they have stated that no source code was changed. If they turn around and start blaming bugs on the hackers, the confidence in their products will plument drastically.
This is exactly what I would like to see. Say I am on a low-rate DSL hookup, my roomate is downloading a large game demo, and I am trying to do some remote administration of a box. The download is sucking up all the bandwidth. It would be great if I could mark the ssh packets as a higher priority, this allowing me to do some useful work and a realtively decent speed while the download continues. Linux has a sort of method for doing this (the TC command) but the documentation on how to 'reserve' a certain amount of bandwidth for certain types of packets is pretty bad, and the system doesn't seem to be able to handle dialup speeds either.
Plus, on a larger scale, it would be nice if routers honored the QoS (or just the ToS) bits for that matter, so interactive apps could win out over batch-type apps.
Now that is an exceedingly good point. I have long pondered on how this works in the 'real world'. In theory, every corporation that has two disparate links to the rest of the world should be capeable of carrying transit traffic, yet with all the hard-nosed routing and firewalling, they have this redunancy turned off. How many corporations have more than one firewall to the real world? They might have a pan-world network, but all their outgoing traffic goes through just one machine. You can bet that their huge network *isn't* carrying someone else's traffic.
Here is a Amazon.com link
Well, in all likelihood you would have problems if you installed O2K on you machine -- you'd end up expecting everyone to be able to read your files. Linux (and the accompanying applications) means that the onus to convert files is on *you*, and you won't go crying to Tech Support if it doesn't work.
It occurs to me that people who might be affected by this, ie people who run this bad daemon, will quickly be fixed since it is the daemon responsible for updating the system. If they are running it, it will update itself. Thus the problem should be short lived.
You can also use it to send the equivalent of a 'certified' email, whereby it will give you a proof-of-posting certificate for a given email. It doesn't guarentee the email was ever received or read, but it could be better than nothing.
I wonder how routing would work if everyone had ethernet strung between their houses. If enough people could run routing daemons, could internet traffic concieveably be routed major distances merely by traveling house-to-house; just going on the backbones long enough to reach another house-cluster?
What about when a script-kiddie who is on a unmetered connection floods your customer; how do you prevent someone else's attack from costing the user money? It is not like they can choose to not receive the traffic.
I believe @[ipnumber] works though; you just have to surround it with square-brackets.