I also donot use Media Player. In fact, I stopped using it when they decided that no longer pauses the movie, but ctrl+P pauses the movie (and I dislike the stupid skinned interface anyway).
Instead I use Media Player Classic.
Of course, I may still be vulnerable to buffer overflow exploits in some of the imaging libraries, but so far it hasn't happened.
... it will likely take an equivalent amount of time to undo the damage
Likely? Based on what? To me it seems that it would be far harder to reverse damage done as it is very likely the changes will start feeding on themselves.
It's easy to cause a lot of damage, that is very hard to undo.
If I blow up your house (which takes me maybe a few days to setup) can you undo that damage in a few days?
How about we kill of all Elephants in the next few years, can you undo that damage.. ever?
I don't understand the patches part. I never patch or update my Windows (automatic updates are off). All I do to keep myself "safe" is:
1) Donot use Outlook (Express)
2) Donot use IE
3) Use a Linux NAT firewall to connect to the internet
In all those years I've run such a setup, I never have had a single virus or other problem I keep hearing so much about. As far as I'm concerned, I can run XP as long as I can buy hardware that has correct drivers for it.
So economically speaking, there are MUCH more CD's sold than tapes, so since CD's can be more massively produced, they should be cheaper, is that what you are saying?
What I was saying however was that tapes have always been cheaper than CD's, even when tapes where still more popular than CD's, and still are today (even though they're alot less popular now). I find that odd since tapes are far more expensive to produce in mass quantities than CD's.
Your argument is flawed. Vista doesn't require any specific hardware, it just has some ridiculous high hardware recommendations. There's no reason it won't run on my current hardware, so if it runs on my current hardware, then why wouldn't Halo 2 run on the same hardware under WinXP?
Furthermore, I suspect Halo 2 will use Direct3D like a good little program, and so it should run on anything that has the correct version of Direct3D installed (although it could be a bit slow if your hardware needs a lot of emulation).
Actually, I think the argument that time travelling is never going to happen (by humans) because we never seen a time traveller is quite a good one.
Let's say, the year 3000 -- time travel is invented by some HUGE organization with HUGE resources, etc, etc.. it gets regulated, and nobody is allowed to travel back in time without proper disguises or whatever.
1000 years later, hundreds of organizations can time travel.
10.000 years later, you can construct a time machine in your own back yard using nothing but standard kitchen appliances and some duct tape. However, the 1984 style satellite network and nano-bot police prevent all such attempts to ruin our past.... for a while.
Eventually, time travel would become so simple that someone goes back undisguised or whatever. The Future is a rather long period of time, if time travel ever is invented, which allows humans to travel back (and live), then inevitably someone will travel back to our time and ruin it.
Therefore I believe human time travel isn't possible.
Well, the future is quite a long period of time, I would think it is highly unlikely a time travelling technology would be forever safeguarded against some crackpot going back to our time and changing it.
It's a bit similair to atomic bombs... it's very hard to make them, but it is easier now than it was 50 years ago. It will only become easier and easier to make atomic bombs. Eventually (100 years from now? 500 years? what about 100.000 years?), some lunatic will create one using materials bought from the local hardware store.
Anyway, it seems far more likely that either a) mankind destroys itself before time travel is invented, or b) time travel works only one way, or c) time travel kills humans, or d) it is not possible.
I see no problem with it, although sneaking into a cinema I wouldn't condone.
I haven't bought a single CD or DVD either in years, and don't intend to either as I find both these media clumsy, or downright annoying (unskippable content comes to mind).
I pay for Cable, but donot own a TV guide; I never ever watch "live" TV anymore, however, I do download stuff that has been on TV before (or will be soon I'll admit) and then watch those at my own leisure -- I donot bother to program my VCR for this simple convience.
I donot think this will be a problem. Music, TV and Movies will not go away -- who produces them and how they are distributed might undergo some serious changes though.
But the fact is, the world doesn't download it. There's only so much bandwidth, so in the end a few *private* individuals will actually download it from you directly (and in most cases only part of it).
The industry would like you to believe that YOU, in making a file available for download, are the SOLE person responsible for every copy downloaded everywhere, not just from you.
The fact of the matter is, a single individual doesn't have the resources to make a file available for everyone, it takes a lot of individuals to make a file public.
However, I see where this makes a good business model, as you could sue everyone that made a copy available for the entire sum of damages...
It's incompatible with other open source licences, like the one used by Mozilla or Eclipse. It means they cannot use QT without also releasing their code into the GPL, or opting for the commercial QT license. GTK works because it is LGPL.
I know, but it doesn't have to be completely secure, it just has to become unfeasible to monitor and decrypt all that traffic. Changing keys within each stream every so often would require the ISP (or man in the middle) to continously monitor all your communications and keep their keys updated. Doing this for all traffic all the time would be unfeasible; in other words it would be effective against mass filtering/throttling techniques. It would probably be a big enough load on their servers that it would be cheaper to just provide more bandwidth.
Also, obfuscation can have its place, even mispellings or simple stuff like ROT13 is routinely used to bypass automatic mass filtering systems.
Anyway, I think that it is still better than sending everything in plain text and just handing your data to them on a silver platter, so something in between HTTP ('silver platter') and HTTPS ('yearly fees') would be quite welcome.
Bandwidth is cheap, and getting cheaper all the time. ISP's providing caching (using a HTTP proxy) used to be a big deal in like the 1990's, these days nobody cares. Besides, BitTorrent probably by its very nature favours peers nearer to you, simply because peers nearer to you will be more responsive and will be able to exchange data at faster rates.
The info hash is stored in the Torrent file, and is not transferred over the network (atleast, not during the downloading process). Torrent files are always downloaded seperately, and can remain dorment on your harddrive for weeks before you actually decide to download the content associated with it.
Furthermore, even if the ISP had cached all the possible Torrent files downloaded, it would have to check them all and see if they can use them to decrypt the traffic, then check if it is BitTorrent, then throttle.
This procedure however (even if it was just a few possible Torrents) would be so expensive to do for ALL their encrypted traffic, that it would be unfeasible.
I believe they use RC4 encryption, but even XOR-ing all data with the hashes stored in the Torrent file would be more than sufficient to make the "encryption" unfeasable to break by the ISP (probably even harder). Every Torrent user has the same secret file (the Torrent) which can serve as a huge key for all data transferred.
Finally, HTTP would probably also be viable (gzipped or not) but it would collide with other stuff running on port 80 (like my webserver).
Well, he's wrong. Basically, any encrypted protocol will look like line noise (well, if done properly that is) and can be transferred over any port (I often transfer SSH over port 80 to fool proxies, so I can actually get my work done without having to sign 50 forms and waiting 3 months for the IT department to actually provide "their service").
For example, lots of MMOG's (Everquest for example) use encryption. There's SSH, HTTPS, Secure IMAP, VPN connections (used between company sites or between company and employees) and the list goes on.
You could try limiting the amount of encrypted connections made (and somehow avoid pissing of your big corporate customers), but I'm sure that can be worked around by simply not connecting to more than 10 peers at once orso.
It would be a war that the ISP's can only win by limiting your download limits regardless of traffic type, at which point they will lose a lot of customers.
Well, I can honestly say my ISP doesn't do this (biggest one in Holland) and, given their track record, likely never will.
Basically they always had a fair use policy (which they never enforced) and recently changed that to unlimited, no strings attached. They do block a few ports, but mostly they are virus related, however, you can DISABLE these filters on your secure ISP page (and change other stuff like virus scanners, spam filters, popmail boxes, etc...).
It is highly unlikely they will ever do something to annoy their users, as the competition will be waiting to take over (there are literally dozens of ISP's to choose from here). The biggest reason for this amount of choice is the fact that the government basically forced the dominant telco here to open their network for anyone to use for a reasonable fee.
Anyway, it sounds to me that your ISP market could use some liberalization.
Encrypted traffic will eventually become the dominant traffic over the internet, no matter what happens really. Encryption is cheap and easy, and IMHO the main roadblock to it being used for almost everything is the fact that the HTTPS protocol with its certificates and signing authorities (and the yearly fees you have to pay them) is total overkill for most websites.
A simple encrypted HTTP protocol without all the certificate crap would be JUST FINE. Just negotiate some form of encryption, exchange some random keys and do your stuff (like SSH basically does everytime you make a connection) -- this can be done complete secure, the only thing you donot have is a 100% guarantee that the website your talking to is really who they say they are -- in other words, just like normal HTTP, except that your ISP can't see what you are doing, nor can anyone else except the destination site (whoever that may be).
Having the option to use encrypted HTTP should involve nothing more than a flip of switch, just like having your HTTP stream gzipped compressed
It seems to me that ISP's should just bite the bullet and provide unlimited upstream/downstream. Practically all Dutch ISP's do this (or say they have a fair use policy, but never enforce it), and after using all that bandwidth for a few years, I find that the problem is:
Where the heck do I store 200-300 GB of new data each month??? Let alone find time to do something useful with it...
The first few months, I downloaded like 300 GB a month... but these days it's not uncommon I upload more than I download (both around 50 GB a month).
Anyway, I think that if ISP's just do this, they'll find their customers will eventually reduce their usage to some acceptable level (atleast until those 500 GB drives become a bit cheaper).
The ISP market in Holland however is very liberal, with literally dozens of different ISP's to chose from, and often 3 or 4 different "physical" carriers (Cable and several different company's using the copper telephone wires for DSL).
Bandwidth doubles about every year for the same price -- competition is good for consumers:)
I'm sorry, but I couldn't care less if my text editor consumes 25 MB of memory (shared or otherwise). 25 MB is peanuts, and I'll gladly use such an editor if it suits my needs, provides a snappy and clean interface and its base foot print doesn't increase when editing larger files.
Unfortunately, for most GTK Linux apps at the moment (some of which I cannot live without), the "snappy" part isn't true because (so I'm told) GTK doesn't make proper use of graphics card acceleration. I'd glady use applications that use TWICE as much memory if they worked as fast and smooth as under Windows.
KDE apps seem a lot more responsive, unfortunately due to the licences under which QT is available, a lot of people opt for GTK instead.
(*) Note: with Sluggish performance I mean menu bars being slow in opening when I move the mouse over them, half-a-second delays in UI actions that are instant on Windows in the same application, that kind of stuff -- just enough to annoy and keeps me using Windows as a front-end while using Linux as just a server. Tested with Debian, Ubuntu & Kubuntu, on a machine with the binary nvidia drivers, 2 GHz, 2 GB RAM
Slashdot Mirror
Instead I use Media Player Classic.
Of course, I may still be vulnerable to buffer overflow exploits in some of the imaging libraries, but so far it hasn't happened.
It's easy to cause a lot of damage, that is very hard to undo.
If I blow up your house (which takes me maybe a few days to setup) can you undo that damage in a few days?
How about we kill of all Elephants in the next few years, can you undo that damage.. ever?
1) Donot use Outlook (Express)
2) Donot use IE
3) Use a Linux NAT firewall to connect to the internet
In all those years I've run such a setup, I never have had a single virus or other problem I keep hearing so much about. As far as I'm concerned, I can run XP as long as I can buy hardware that has correct drivers for it.
What I was saying however was that tapes have always been cheaper than CD's, even when tapes where still more popular than CD's, and still are today (even though they're alot less popular now). I find that odd since tapes are far more expensive to produce in mass quantities than CD's.
Or could it possibly be that they made their own flags??? Perhaps using a white piece of bed linnen and some paint? Ingenious!!
Sounds to me the 2nd option is free...
Furthermore, I suspect Halo 2 will use Direct3D like a good little program, and so it should run on anything that has the correct version of Direct3D installed (although it could be a bit slow if your hardware needs a lot of emulation).
Just give me a Vista + Halo2 VMware image to download. Safes me all the installing and cracking :)
Ah yes, and all this old movie footage was shot at 60fps?
As long as CD's are more expensive than their audio tape counterparts, I will continue believing that CD's are overpriced.
1) Walk from couch to DVD tower
2) Hunt through DVD's until you find desired one
3) Insert DVD into player
4) Walk back to couch
5) Channel surf a bit while waiting for trailers to finish
6) Watch movie
Where as at my home it is more like
1) Switch to SVHS input on TV (without getting up from couch)
2) Select movie from list neatly indexed
3) Watch movie
Let's say, the year 3000 -- time travel is invented by some HUGE organization with HUGE resources, etc, etc.. it gets regulated, and nobody is allowed to travel back in time without proper disguises or whatever.
1000 years later, hundreds of organizations can time travel.
10.000 years later, you can construct a time machine in your own back yard using nothing but standard kitchen appliances and some duct tape. However, the 1984 style satellite network and nano-bot police prevent all such attempts to ruin our past.... for a while.
Eventually, time travel would become so simple that someone goes back undisguised or whatever. The Future is a rather long period of time, if time travel ever is invented, which allows humans to travel back (and live), then inevitably someone will travel back to our time and ruin it.
Therefore I believe human time travel isn't possible.
It's a bit similair to atomic bombs... it's very hard to make them, but it is easier now than it was 50 years ago. It will only become easier and easier to make atomic bombs. Eventually (100 years from now? 500 years? what about 100.000 years?), some lunatic will create one using materials bought from the local hardware store.
Anyway, it seems far more likely that either a) mankind destroys itself before time travel is invented, or b) time travel works only one way, or c) time travel kills humans, or d) it is not possible.
I haven't bought a single CD or DVD either in years, and don't intend to either as I find both these media clumsy, or downright annoying (unskippable content comes to mind).
I pay for Cable, but donot own a TV guide; I never ever watch "live" TV anymore, however, I do download stuff that has been on TV before (or will be soon I'll admit) and then watch those at my own leisure -- I donot bother to program my VCR for this simple convience.
I donot think this will be a problem. Music, TV and Movies will not go away -- who produces them and how they are distributed might undergo some serious changes though.
The industry would like you to believe that YOU, in making a file available for download, are the SOLE person responsible for every copy downloaded everywhere, not just from you.
The fact of the matter is, a single individual doesn't have the resources to make a file available for everyone, it takes a lot of individuals to make a file public.
However, I see where this makes a good business model, as you could sue everyone that made a copy available for the entire sum of damages...
I wonder though why watching a huge blank space for 15 seconds gets me a free pass. Is it a flash add or something?
It's incompatible with other open source licences, like the one used by Mozilla or Eclipse. It means they cannot use QT without also releasing their code into the GPL, or opting for the commercial QT license. GTK works because it is LGPL.
Also, obfuscation can have its place, even mispellings or simple stuff like ROT13 is routinely used to bypass automatic mass filtering systems.
Anyway, I think that it is still better than sending everything in plain text and just handing your data to them on a silver platter, so something in between HTTP ('silver platter') and HTTPS ('yearly fees') would be quite welcome.
Bandwidth is cheap, and getting cheaper all the time. ISP's providing caching (using a HTTP proxy) used to be a big deal in like the 1990's, these days nobody cares. Besides, BitTorrent probably by its very nature favours peers nearer to you, simply because peers nearer to you will be more responsive and will be able to exchange data at faster rates.
Furthermore, even if the ISP had cached all the possible Torrent files downloaded, it would have to check them all and see if they can use them to decrypt the traffic, then check if it is BitTorrent, then throttle.
This procedure however (even if it was just a few possible Torrents) would be so expensive to do for ALL their encrypted traffic, that it would be unfeasible.
I believe they use RC4 encryption, but even XOR-ing all data with the hashes stored in the Torrent file would be more than sufficient to make the "encryption" unfeasable to break by the ISP (probably even harder). Every Torrent user has the same secret file (the Torrent) which can serve as a huge key for all data transferred.
Finally, HTTP would probably also be viable (gzipped or not) but it would collide with other stuff running on port 80 (like my webserver).
For example, lots of MMOG's (Everquest for example) use encryption. There's SSH, HTTPS, Secure IMAP, VPN connections (used between company sites or between company and employees) and the list goes on.
You could try limiting the amount of encrypted connections made (and somehow avoid pissing of your big corporate customers), but I'm sure that can be worked around by simply not connecting to more than 10 peers at once orso.
It would be a war that the ISP's can only win by limiting your download limits regardless of traffic type, at which point they will lose a lot of customers.
Basically they always had a fair use policy (which they never enforced) and recently changed that to unlimited, no strings attached. They do block a few ports, but mostly they are virus related, however, you can DISABLE these filters on your secure ISP page (and change other stuff like virus scanners, spam filters, popmail boxes, etc...).
It is highly unlikely they will ever do something to annoy their users, as the competition will be waiting to take over (there are literally dozens of ISP's to choose from here). The biggest reason for this amount of choice is the fact that the government basically forced the dominant telco here to open their network for anyone to use for a reasonable fee.
Anyway, it sounds to me that your ISP market could use some liberalization.
A simple encrypted HTTP protocol without all the certificate crap would be JUST FINE. Just negotiate some form of encryption, exchange some random keys and do your stuff (like SSH basically does everytime you make a connection) -- this can be done complete secure, the only thing you donot have is a 100% guarantee that the website your talking to is really who they say they are -- in other words, just like normal HTTP, except that your ISP can't see what you are doing, nor can anyone else except the destination site (whoever that may be).
Having the option to use encrypted HTTP should involve nothing more than a flip of switch, just like having your HTTP stream gzipped compressed
Where the heck do I store 200-300 GB of new data each month??? Let alone find time to do something useful with it...
The first few months, I downloaded like 300 GB a month... but these days it's not uncommon I upload more than I download (both around 50 GB a month).
Anyway, I think that if ISP's just do this, they'll find their customers will eventually reduce their usage to some acceptable level (atleast until those 500 GB drives become a bit cheaper).
The ISP market in Holland however is very liberal, with literally dozens of different ISP's to chose from, and often 3 or 4 different "physical" carriers (Cable and several different company's using the copper telephone wires for DSL).
Bandwidth doubles about every year for the same price -- competition is good for consumers :)
Unfortunately, for most GTK Linux apps at the moment (some of which I cannot live without), the "snappy" part isn't true because (so I'm told) GTK doesn't make proper use of graphics card acceleration. I'd glady use applications that use TWICE as much memory if they worked as fast and smooth as under Windows.
KDE apps seem a lot more responsive, unfortunately due to the licences under which QT is available, a lot of people opt for GTK instead.
(*) Note: with Sluggish performance I mean menu bars being slow in opening when I move the mouse over them, half-a-second delays in UI actions that are instant on Windows in the same application, that kind of stuff -- just enough to annoy and keeps me using Windows as a front-end while using Linux as just a server. Tested with Debian, Ubuntu & Kubuntu, on a machine with the binary nvidia drivers, 2 GHz, 2 GB RAM