I have dealt with speech recognition software a whole bunch of times on the phone. My cell phone company uses it for their tech support. The system is remarkably annoying to use, however I have to admit that the speech recognition part works most of the time.
The other day, I used 411 directory assistance to look up a phone number. The system is completely based on voice recognition, and it worked great.
I have to disagree with the other posters who replied. I switched to dvorak for a few months & became fluent in it (without using a dvorak keyboard... just memorizing the layout).
Afterwards, I found I couldn't switch back and forth between dvorak & qwerty without making tons of mistakes. I decided to switch back to qwerty after struggling with a routine coding exercise during a job interview.
You know when little kids want to watch the same video over and over again? But more importantly, they get upset if you won't watch it with them... I think it would be good for that.
It's time to dispell the myth that just because IBM funds some Linux development they must be altruists.
IBM funds Linux development because at some point the executives got in a room, crunched some numbers, and concluded that either a) backing Linux will benefit IBM, or more likely b) backing Linux will hurt IBM but it will hurt IBM's competitors more.
Like any serious company, IBM is not just out to make a profit. They are out to make a profit that will beat the ROI of your average index fund. Otherwise there is no incentive for shareholders to invest their money in IBM instead of some other company. Missing their expectations by a scant $100M doesn't seem like much relative to their total revenue, but it's a lot in absolute terms. If my employer missed their target by that much, they would have to fire the whole company.
In 1980, the average CEO made 42 times the average salary of the regular workers at his company. In 2000, the average CEO made 419 times the average salary.
Okay, sure. But that's just the CEO. The other executives may only be making 2-3 times what a senior employee is making.
You'd be suprised. When I died a few years ago I had this done, and it's been great fun. It was either this or getting frozen. I'm just waiting for someone to screw up and download me, and I'm home free. That's where the money will be. Allowing the rich people to take over a younger person's body.
This is not new. It's called Freejack. Or does no one but me remember that movie?
If you beat him with sticks for two hours he give it at least two stars.
Two stars is a strong thumbs down. Contrary to what it says in the story posting, 2.5 stars from Ebert is a marginal thumbs down, and 3 stars is a marginal thumbs up.
As usual, not much fact checking from the editor/submitter, but I'm surprised no one else caught this.
Battlestar Galactica has had substantial, positive, coverage in the mainstream media. a strong lead-in and perfect placement on Sci-Fi Channel's Friday night schedule. The top rated non sports cable program in prime time among men age 25-54, Galactica is well written, well cast, and takes a minimalist approach to the use of special effects. I very much doubt that bit torrent has been the slightest factor in its success.
Which is what I mean by anecdotal evidence. I.e. one show is not a representative sample, and this is not a scientific study.
GPL violators are charging for something they got for free. Torrent pirates give for free something they paid for (probably). It's making money off someone else's trouble vs not paying someone for their trouble. Not quite the same.
I think you're splitting the wrong hair. Anyway, GPL violators aren't charging for something they got for free. Generally, they are charging for the added value they provide (e.g. custom hardware, service & support, added features, easier configuration, documentation, etc).
The GPL only exists with the support of copyright. If not for copyright, everything would effectively be BSD (if much would truly be written at all, seeng as how there'd be zero incentive.)
And why wouldn't there be any incentive? Linux only emerged as a major player a few years ago. What gave anyone the incentive to develop it before that? The whole point of the GPL is to force people to contribute who don't really want to. But don't companies like IBM and RedHat claim to be contributing voluntarily? What real incentive does the GPL license provide, then?
Big things happen through the combined actions of many people... presidents are elected, genocides are commited, social attitudes change. However, I would disagree that these movements aren't organized. Political/social movements always have leaders and followers. Your analogy fails because commercial enterprise is not the same as personal use... One is for profit; the other is not
Now you do sound like an anti-corporate zealot. Yeah, yeah.. file sharing=Robin Hood, profit=evil.
P2P apologists continue to be the most overt example of/. hyprocracy. Like it or not, this is purely a question of the copyright owners wanting to control the means by which their product is distributed (the "license", shall we say). In fact, it doesn't make a whit of difference whether/. readers believe that torrents have a positive effect on the popularity of tv shows because it is the perogative of the copyright owners to decide how their product is marketed. This story is nothing but a single piece of anecdotal evidence. And there isn't even the spectre of poor, exploited artists to elicit sympathy.
I would like to see the same arguments applied to GPL violators. After all, unauthorized use of GPL software can't decrease the legitimate use of that software. It's not "stealing" because no one is being deprived of property, and the companies that choose to violate the GPL weren't the ones that were going to contribute in the first place. But now consider all the programmers who are being exposed to GPL via their employers' unscrupulous practices. The same guy who today is writing proprietary Linux extensions may someday cash in his stock options and spend his "retirement" writing the next generation networking code. And think about the benefit to the up & coming programmers in the 3rd world, who are benefiting from working on outsourced Linux-based code instead of outsourced Windows-based code. 10 years from now, that pool of programmers will make Linux even stronger. So come on/.ers... instead of persecuting GPL violators, you should be thanking them.
Now go ahead readers & nitpick my analogy. But you know it to be true in essence.
Yes, it's a flaw in IPSec and that's bad, but I think it's technically a very difficult attack AND relatively easy to work around.
No, it is not a flaw in IPsec. It is simply a misconfiguration. IPsec is a very flexible protocol, and it has been both praised and criticized for that fact. The upside is that you can choose to use whatever crypto algorithms you want. The downside is that you may choose a dumb combination.
It's important to realize that you're only vulnerable to this issue if you're *not* doing integrity checking via IPSEC. Most major VPN infrastructures I run across use ESP with both confidentiality *and* integrity functionality enabled (some use AH as well). If that's the case for network x, then network x has nothing to fear from this.
What you say is true.
Another thing that hasn't been mentioned is that most VPN boxes would use SPD checking to verify that the IPs of packets coming out of the tunnel matches what was negotiated. Probably the packets can only get redirected to someone who was already on your network. (There are better ways to handle that -- ARP poisoning...)
On the other hand, it is a flaw in the standard to claim that you can get confidentiality without integrity.
IIRC, the standard doesn't say that. I believe it says the opposite.
Disabling authentication is just something vendors like do to increase their published performance numbers. No one should actually deploy that configuration.
Slashdot Mirror
You're talking about a provisional filing.
-a
Well spotted. It's incredible what people will do for karma these days.
These days?
I saw the same tactic being used by trolls several years ago.
-a
Britney Spears is not a "standard artist". Standard artists can't sell out football stadiums. They can't even get booked in football stadiums.
-a
I have dealt with speech recognition software a whole bunch of times on the phone. My cell phone company uses it for their tech support. The system is remarkably annoying to use, however I have to admit that the speech recognition part works most of the time.
The other day, I used 411 directory assistance to look up a phone number. The system is completely based on voice recognition, and it worked great.
-a
Okay, but you just compared the album sales revenue from a "standard artist" to the touring "floor" of Britney Spears.
How about comparing apples to apples?
-a
Unf. this would cost the beef industry somewhat more money (as they wouldn't get free feed from dead cows), and they are resisting it very strongly.
Source?
I don't know of any countries that still permit this.
-a
"It is only recently that people have really started to consider the long-term consequences of different issues"
Oh come on. That is just bullshit. You think no one ever thought about the long-term view 50 years ago? Sure they did. However, these people were:
a) frequently ignored (as they are today)
b) frequently wrong (predicting the future is an inexact science)
-a
I have to disagree with the other posters who replied. I switched to dvorak for a few months & became fluent in it (without using a dvorak keyboard... just memorizing the layout).
Afterwards, I found I couldn't switch back and forth between dvorak & qwerty without making tons of mistakes. I decided to switch back to qwerty after struggling with a routine coding exercise during a job interview.
-a
You know when little kids want to watch the same video over and over again? But more importantly, they get upset if you won't watch it with them... I think it would be good for that.
-a
It's time to dispell the myth that just because IBM funds some Linux development they must be altruists.
IBM funds Linux development because at some point the executives got in a room, crunched some numbers, and concluded that either a) backing Linux will benefit IBM, or more likely b) backing Linux will hurt IBM but it will hurt IBM's competitors more.
Like any serious company, IBM is not just out to make a profit. They are out to make a profit that will beat the ROI of your average index fund. Otherwise there is no incentive for shareholders to invest their money in IBM instead of some other company. Missing their expectations by a scant $100M doesn't seem like much relative to their total revenue, but it's a lot in absolute terms. If my employer missed their target by that much, they would have to fire the whole company.
-a
In 1980, the average CEO made 42 times the average salary of the regular workers at his company. In 2000, the average CEO made 419 times the average salary.
Okay, sure. But that's just the CEO. The other executives may only be making 2-3 times what a senior employee is making.
-a
You'd be suprised. When I died a few years ago I had this done, and it's been great fun. It was either this or getting frozen. I'm just waiting for someone to screw up and download me, and I'm home free. That's where the money will be. Allowing the rich people to take over a younger person's body.
This is not new. It's called Freejack. Or does no one but me remember that movie?
-a
Since it costs about $40,000 to get a new person hired
Huh? Source, please! (and subject to what constraints?)
-a
If you beat him with sticks for two hours he give it at least two stars.
Two stars is a strong thumbs down. Contrary to what it says in the story posting, 2.5 stars from Ebert is a marginal thumbs down, and 3 stars is a marginal thumbs up.
As usual, not much fact checking from the editor/submitter, but I'm surprised no one else caught this.
-a
The point is not that someone is literally being forced into releasing their code. Rather, they are coerced into doing it.
GPL violators are coerced into an unethical business practice because they have to compete with:
a) idealistic startups with more money than sense
b) established players with donkey-in-a-manger syndrome
c) other GPL violators
-a
Battlestar Galactica has had substantial, positive, coverage in the mainstream media. a strong lead-in and perfect placement on Sci-Fi Channel's Friday night schedule. The top rated non sports cable program in prime time among men age 25-54, Galactica is well written, well cast, and takes a minimalist approach to the use of special effects. I very much doubt that bit torrent has been the slightest factor in its success.
Which is what I mean by anecdotal evidence. I.e. one show is not a representative sample, and this is not a scientific study.
-a
GPL violators are charging for something they got for free. Torrent pirates give for free something they paid for (probably). It's making money off someone else's trouble vs not paying someone for their trouble. Not quite the same.
I think you're splitting the wrong hair. Anyway, GPL violators aren't charging for something they got for free. Generally, they are charging for the added value they provide (e.g. custom hardware, service & support, added features, easier configuration, documentation, etc).
-a
The GPL only exists with the support of copyright. If not for copyright, everything would effectively be BSD (if much would truly be written at all, seeng as how there'd be zero incentive.)
And why wouldn't there be any incentive? Linux only emerged as a major player a few years ago. What gave anyone the incentive to develop it before that? The whole point of the GPL is to force people to contribute who don't really want to. But don't companies like IBM and RedHat claim to be contributing voluntarily? What real incentive does the GPL license provide, then?
-a
Big things happen through the combined actions of many people... presidents are elected, genocides are commited, social attitudes change. However, I would disagree that these movements aren't organized. Political/social movements always have leaders and followers.
... One is for profit; the other is not
Your analogy fails because commercial enterprise is not the same as personal use
Now you do sound like an anti-corporate zealot. Yeah, yeah.. file sharing=Robin Hood, profit=evil.
-a
P2P apologists continue to be the most overt example of /. hyprocracy. Like it or not, this is purely a question of the copyright owners wanting to control the means by which their product is distributed (the "license", shall we say). In fact, it doesn't make a whit of difference whether /. readers believe that torrents have a positive effect on the popularity of tv shows because it is the perogative of the copyright owners to decide how their product is marketed. This story is nothing but a single piece of anecdotal evidence. And there isn't even the spectre of poor, exploited artists to elicit sympathy.
/.ers... instead of persecuting GPL violators, you should be thanking them.
I would like to see the same arguments applied to GPL violators. After all, unauthorized use of GPL software can't decrease the legitimate use of that software. It's not "stealing" because no one is being deprived of property, and the companies that choose to violate the GPL weren't the ones that were going to contribute in the first place. But now consider all the programmers who are being exposed to GPL via their employers' unscrupulous practices. The same guy who today is writing proprietary Linux extensions may someday cash in his stock options and spend his "retirement" writing the next generation networking code. And think about the benefit to the up & coming programmers in the 3rd world, who are benefiting from working on outsourced Linux-based code instead of outsourced Windows-based code. 10 years from now, that pool of programmers will make Linux even stronger. So come on
Now go ahead readers & nitpick my analogy. But you know it to be true in essence.
-a
Yes, it's a flaw in IPSec and that's bad, but I think it's technically a very difficult attack AND relatively easy to work around.
No, it is not a flaw in IPsec. It is simply a misconfiguration. IPsec is a very flexible protocol, and it has been both praised and criticized for that fact. The upside is that you can choose to use whatever crypto algorithms you want. The downside is that you may choose a dumb combination.
-a
It's important to realize that you're only vulnerable to this issue if you're *not* doing integrity checking via IPSEC. Most major VPN infrastructures I run across use ESP with both confidentiality *and* integrity functionality enabled (some use AH as well). If that's the case for network x, then network x has nothing to fear from this.
What you say is true.
Another thing that hasn't been mentioned is that most VPN boxes would use SPD checking to verify that the IPs of packets coming out of the tunnel matches what was negotiated. Probably the packets can only get redirected to someone who was already on your network. (There are better ways to handle that -- ARP poisoning...)
-a
Does this mean that it DOES apply to IPSEC VPNs that are configured with NAT Traversal?
Sure, if you disable authentication. But there's nothing specifically related to NAT traversal.
-a
On the other hand, it is a flaw in the standard to claim that you can get confidentiality without integrity.
IIRC, the standard doesn't say that. I believe it says the opposite.
Disabling authentication is just something vendors like do to increase their published performance numbers. No one should actually deploy that configuration.
-a
As far as I know, there is a way to crack Aggressive mode Pre-shared keys when used on IP-Sec. It's been done and proven.
Yeah... it's called brute force.
A lot of boxes on the net use relatively weak passwords, so it shouldn't take too long, actually... although you might set off the IDP.
-a