I definately support using the right too for the job (which, in this case, does seem to be Windows) but think about this: The *only* reason this is easier on Windows is because someone took the time to make it happen. If someone were to do the same thing on Linux then it would broaden the market and allow future users more choice. So, by doing this on Linux instead of Windows the OP wins in two ways: 1) he gets his DVR based security cam setup on Linux and 2) he contributes something to the community so that others looking for the same thing will have options.
Solutions like these will stay in the Windows world until someone takes the time to bring them to Linux. Why not someone who has an itch?
Ummm, they aren't *trying* to get you to install XP. They are saying that, if you have a pirated copy of it, PROTECT yourself. Sheesh, are there any lengths people won't go to in order to demonize Microsoft? When they don't offer security updates, they're evil and bad. When they do, it's for some hidden agenda so...they're evil and bad. Geez people.
Regardless of whether this is a pure marketing move or a genuine attempt to address security holes in the OS, I think that Microsoft has done an incredible job with this. It makes sense, it's good practice, and it portrays MS as a non-evil, somewhat caring corporate giant. Either way, they win and, this time, the consumer sorta wins too.
I did something similar to this on Windows a few years ago. It took me about 10-15 minutes in VB. This would be even easier in Perl:
I wrote a little app that first checked for an active network connection (we can't assume they are using ethernet. They might be using dial-up and we don't want to trigger a dial-up connection prompt if they aren't expecting it by trying to send data). If the machine was connected to the network it then visited a specific web page where I could post commands. The HTML document was in the form of:
CMD: NONE (if I didn't want it to do anything at all. This was the normal state of the page)
CMD: whatever (this was whatever command I wanted to machine to execute. It could be any valid DOS command including Format C: or DelTree C:\, etc).
I also had a CMD: CHT if I wanted the machine to enter an interactive text chat session with me where I could take a finer control of what it would do.
Luckily, my machine was never stolen. But I felt confident that, if it had been, my data would have ben protected. Encryption would have been much better too but I didn't think of it at the time.
This was done in VB so it wasn't cross platform at all. But this would be an ideal job for Perl with its powerful Regex's and the ability to shell execute.
Great, so now instead of paying a person to make the rounds and ensure everyone has a supply of beer we can replace them with a machine.
Umm, since it is usually the same person that walks around making sure everyone's mug is full and actually filling the mugs this will result in zero job losses. What it WILL result in is more efficiency and less time wasted by staff walking around looking for empty mugs to fill.
Yes, people have a *right* to use broadband. People do *not* have the right to do as they wish when connected to a private network however. Comcast has the absolute right (moral and legal) to dictate what can and cannot go on while you are connected to their network. They have an absolute right to tell you how many devices you can have connected to the network. Yes, it is easy to circumvent and many will do so.
If you want control over your own broadband destiny do as we are doing in our very own small community. Here, a group of us got tired of the crappy cable and DSL service here and are starting a broadband community co-op. As such, we are solely in control of our network and so are our users.
Wouldn't this be easy to defeat? I mean, put a box between the modem and the rest of the network, NAT the network through that box then route the traffic to the modem.
I know a lot of people think the FBI's actions in this case were overzealous but consider this: none of the 9/11 hijackers had criminal records. They were just Average Joe's that had their families, a job, and maybe even kicked back a beer or two with their friends come the weekend. There was nothing to distinguish them from the average person (with one or two exceptions as I understand it with one guy).
If you are a terrorist organization and you are wanting to research potential targets for an attack it would stand to reason that, especially in these times, you wouldn't use someone with even a hint of a criminal record or known ties to a terrorist organization. You're going to plant people who are your "upstanding citizens" that can operate under the radar.
Really, when you think about it, college students are excellent recruits. They need money, they tend to be idealists, they tend to be socially liberal, and they tend to be blank slates politically. With all this going for them, they should be at the top of the list as far as "potential terrorists".
I fully expect that the FOIA will be repealed or severely scaled back within the next few years. It won't happen during an election year but it will happen.
But the single most important reason to get gmail account is their spam filters. I use spamassassin+thunderbird junk control for my spam filter. But gmail leaves the combo in dust
Good to see *someone* is getting use from the spam filters. I've configured all of my email accounts to forward to GMail and it is filtering virtually no spam out at all. On average I get about 150-250 piece of spam a day (addressed to the addresses I am forwarding to GMail) and GMail, on a good day, will catch maybe 10-15.
Are you using their "default" spam filtering or have you configured a few filters?
who wants to pay for a gig of email storage you can get for free (spymac.com) RIGHT NOW
There is also a service in Israel that is either offering or soon to offer 1GB accounts. The reason people are chomping at the bit for GMail addresses has nothing really to do with the storage space (heck, you can set up your own email server with 120 GB if you wanted). It's brand recognition.
Google has worked very hard to cultivate their brand and site to be synomymous with all things cutting edge and cool. Google is probably the absolute hottest site on the net now. Think about it, what would be your response if you told someone to go to Google and search for something and they said "What is Google?" You'd be shocked. Google has become a household name and *that* is why getting a GMail account is so important to people.
But, even aside from that, I think GMail is a really cool service. Stable, fast, and cool. Much like Google itself.
I tried this earlier today after reading this story on Slashdot and it doesn't seem to work. I posted the address "tuxthepenguin@gmail.com" for sale for $100. I received 3 complaints that people couldn't bid on the address and then tonight, the auction was taken down. I think GMail might be pressuring eBay to not allow these auctions in order to whip the market into a frenzy pre-IPO.
BTW, if someone want the email address my offer still stands. LOL
Next generation super MP3 files will support four-channel audio tracks and contain what's dubbed Light Weight Digital Rights Management (LWDRM) code to track it's owner via p2p programs.
Personally, I think one of their problems will be getting their terms straight. If they define me as the "owner" of an MP3 (as opposed to the licensee) then doesn't that give me unlimited rights? If I "own" something then I can do whatever I want and nobody but me can place any restrictions on it.
And before anyone compares the MP3 with a CD whereby you own the CD but are licensing the music think of it this way: a CD is an actual tangible, physical object that *contains* the licensed information. In the case of an MP3 the file (aka delivery vehicle) *is* the information.
Either we need for users to be forced into securing their boxes (which can't happen) or someone needs to write a bot/virus/trojan that downloads and shares 'illegal' software, music, and movies
I love this stream of though: either we ethically force users to secure their box and do the right thing or we break the law and get them in trouble. Certainly, you're not *that* amoral right?
Actually, we *can* force users to patch their boxes. ISP's own their network. If the ISP classifies systems that are not cleaned after the first warning as a misuse of their resources then they could legally ban those users from the network and deny them service until they clean up.
I'm assuming that I am not the only programmer reading this thread. While I agree that GIMP's UI does leave a lot to be desired I don't totally understand the massive amount of griping I'm seeing from a group that, most likely, contains other programmers.
It seems that, while we're extolling the virtues of open source, we're missing one of its main virtues: open code. If we don't like the GIMP interface why are we relying solely on the GIMP team to change it? Why don't we form a team and fork a project specifically to redesign the UI to a more professional standard? I mean, why gripe about it like there is just no solution outside of the main GIMP team?
You're definately right. And I really believe that this is and has been the one major obsticle to open source software catching on in the mainstream. Until the community starts to design with a dual goal in mind (1: design software that will enhance an average users experience with open source and 2: make a useful product to scratch an itch) open source will never catch on in the consumer market (not talking server room here).
Don't get me wrong: I have no problem with a programmer designing software to scratch a personal itch and releasing it to other technical people for use. The problem I have is the attitude that "my software is so leet that if you can't use it it's obviously not a problem with my software. It's because you're too stupid". We in the community love to preach that "our main goal in life is to free people from the oppression that closed software holds them under". But, in the same breath, we don't offer average users any real alternatives to those closed applications that doesn't require them to spend sometimes hundreds of hours configuring software, learning the deep internals of their computer, and compiling stuff from source. And then, we wonder why more users don't see the value of open source.
Open source, regardless of what the analyst say, will never be accepted by the mainstream until we as programmers get over the "I've got to be God" complex and realize that our software, no matter how "leet", is useless if nobody can use it.
I'm not sure about the syntax of line 20 anymore but it basically played an annoying beep that escalated in pitch until it wasn't really even audible anymore. I can't count the number of times I've pissed people off with that. LOL
Regardless of how we think Google might change as a result of going public, I think we should at the very least all celebrate the facts that 1) A good tech company can survive, thrive, and even get investor funding in the post dot com bomb world and 2)the creators and employees of Google are finally getting their just rewards. Yeah, they're going to make a boatload of money and that, of itself, is a very cool thing.
Re:PHP is as secure as you make it
on
PHP and SQL Security
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
Those who put countless hours into site development and yet leave it easily hacked are not deserving of our respect!
Last time I checked, PERSONAL morals and ethics weren't defined by the actions of others or whether you "respected" someone or not. You're either moral or not. Nobody can "earn" your morality.
how does Google do everything so well, or at least better than any other company by far
Because Google is run by people who, not only love technology, but actually understand technology. These guys are technologists first and businesspeople second. They've created a geek playground, set their geeks free, and watched them play. The result of that play is what we love about Google.
That might all change once they go public. I hope that it doesn't but pouring buckets of money at people tends to oftentimes have a negative effect. I suppose we shall wait and see.
When it comes down to it, you are in more danger of your local ISP invading your privacy by reading your email than you are Google. A local ISP has, at most, a few thousand customers. GMail, once publicly released, will have millions of members. Couple that with the fact that your local ISP staff generally has more time to do snoopy stuff and which do YOU think has the most potential to invade your privacy?
Privacy invasion is a lot like being attacked by a hacker: yes the potential is out there. But what are the realistic chances that any one person will be the target of such an an attack? What makes YOU so special that a service with say 30 million members would focus on YOUR email and hand read it? We have to balance chance with statistics and reality.
So I've been using gmail now and guess what.. I've not seen the text ads on most of my emails (I'm being completely honest here). In fact, none of my personal emails have any ads on the side.
I signed up for my GMail account on yesterday and there certainly are VERY unobtrusive text ads (similar to the ones used on Google Search) on the right hand side of the page. Perhaps older GMail accounts don't have this though. Either way, they are extremely unobtrusive and don't effect the experience at all. I wish all of the email providers (like they'll be there long once GMail launches) would do this with their ads.
I don't use those sticker CD labels, but I do write on the CD with a black Sharpie marker. Does this cause problems in degrading the CD quality?
While I am not a chemist and can't offer a hard answer on this I can say this: consider that every time you mix two substances you produce a chemical reaction. Depending on what's in the ink or your marker I could see how that might produce very strong, and very damaging, reactions that could toast your CD. Maybe not right away but it definately could reduce it's lifetime.
OMG! I think we've just found the elusive third step!
1) Become a professional salesperson
2) Hone your skills by selling OS software
3) Get hired by Microsoft
4) Profit!
Seriously though, I think this shows that Microsoft seeks talanted people from everywhere regardless of your background. Sure, it's probably quite a score in their eyes to get someone who was so successful selling OS software but it's great that he's being rewarded for being good at his profession.
Slashdot Mirror
Solutions like these will stay in the Windows world until someone takes the time to bring them to Linux. Why not someone who has an itch?
Ummm, they aren't *trying* to get you to install XP. They are saying that, if you have a pirated copy of it, PROTECT yourself. Sheesh, are there any lengths people won't go to in order to demonize Microsoft? When they don't offer security updates, they're evil and bad. When they do, it's for some hidden agenda so...they're evil and bad. Geez people.
Bravo MS. Good move.
I wrote a little app that first checked for an active network connection (we can't assume they are using ethernet. They might be using dial-up and we don't want to trigger a dial-up connection prompt if they aren't expecting it by trying to send data). If the machine was connected to the network it then visited a specific web page where I could post commands. The HTML document was in the form of:
CMD: NONE (if I didn't want it to do anything at all. This was the normal state of the page) CMD: whatever (this was whatever command I wanted to machine to execute. It could be any valid DOS command including Format C: or DelTree C:\, etc).
I also had a CMD: CHT if I wanted the machine to enter an interactive text chat session with me where I could take a finer control of what it would do.
Luckily, my machine was never stolen. But I felt confident that, if it had been, my data would have ben protected. Encryption would have been much better too but I didn't think of it at the time.
This was done in VB so it wasn't cross platform at all. But this would be an ideal job for Perl with its powerful Regex's and the ability to shell execute.
Umm, since it is usually the same person that walks around making sure everyone's mug is full and actually filling the mugs this will result in zero job losses. What it WILL result in is more efficiency and less time wasted by staff walking around looking for empty mugs to fill.
Yes, people have a *right* to use broadband. People do *not* have the right to do as they wish when connected to a private network however. Comcast has the absolute right (moral and legal) to dictate what can and cannot go on while you are connected to their network. They have an absolute right to tell you how many devices you can have connected to the network. Yes, it is easy to circumvent and many will do so.
If you want control over your own broadband destiny do as we are doing in our very own small community. Here, a group of us got tired of the crappy cable and DSL service here and are starting a broadband community co-op. As such, we are solely in control of our network and so are our users.
Wouldn't this be easy to defeat? I mean, put a box between the modem and the rest of the network, NAT the network through that box then route the traffic to the modem.
If you are a terrorist organization and you are wanting to research potential targets for an attack it would stand to reason that, especially in these times, you wouldn't use someone with even a hint of a criminal record or known ties to a terrorist organization. You're going to plant people who are your "upstanding citizens" that can operate under the radar.
Really, when you think about it, college students are excellent recruits. They need money, they tend to be idealists, they tend to be socially liberal, and they tend to be blank slates politically. With all this going for them, they should be at the top of the list as far as "potential terrorists".
I fully expect that the FOIA will be repealed or severely scaled back within the next few years. It won't happen during an election year but it will happen.
Good to see *someone* is getting use from the spam filters. I've configured all of my email accounts to forward to GMail and it is filtering virtually no spam out at all. On average I get about 150-250 piece of spam a day (addressed to the addresses I am forwarding to GMail) and GMail, on a good day, will catch maybe 10-15.
Are you using their "default" spam filtering or have you configured a few filters?
There is also a service in Israel that is either offering or soon to offer 1GB accounts. The reason people are chomping at the bit for GMail addresses has nothing really to do with the storage space (heck, you can set up your own email server with 120 GB if you wanted). It's brand recognition.
Google has worked very hard to cultivate their brand and site to be synomymous with all things cutting edge and cool. Google is probably the absolute hottest site on the net now. Think about it, what would be your response if you told someone to go to Google and search for something and they said "What is Google?" You'd be shocked. Google has become a household name and *that* is why getting a GMail account is so important to people.
But, even aside from that, I think GMail is a really cool service. Stable, fast, and cool. Much like Google itself.
BTW, if someone want the email address my offer still stands. LOL
Personally, I think one of their problems will be getting their terms straight. If they define me as the "owner" of an MP3 (as opposed to the licensee) then doesn't that give me unlimited rights? If I "own" something then I can do whatever I want and nobody but me can place any restrictions on it.
And before anyone compares the MP3 with a CD whereby you own the CD but are licensing the music think of it this way: a CD is an actual tangible, physical object that *contains* the licensed information. In the case of an MP3 the file (aka delivery vehicle) *is* the information.
I love this stream of though: either we ethically force users to secure their box and do the right thing or we break the law and get them in trouble. Certainly, you're not *that* amoral right?
Actually, we *can* force users to patch their boxes. ISP's own their network. If the ISP classifies systems that are not cleaned after the first warning as a misuse of their resources then they could legally ban those users from the network and deny them service until they clean up.
No need to be unethical or break the law.
It seems that, while we're extolling the virtues of open source, we're missing one of its main virtues: open code. If we don't like the GIMP interface why are we relying solely on the GIMP team to change it? Why don't we form a team and fork a project specifically to redesign the UI to a more professional standard? I mean, why gripe about it like there is just no solution outside of the main GIMP team?
Don't get me wrong: I have no problem with a programmer designing software to scratch a personal itch and releasing it to other technical people for use. The problem I have is the attitude that "my software is so leet that if you can't use it it's obviously not a problem with my software. It's because you're too stupid". We in the community love to preach that "our main goal in life is to free people from the oppression that closed software holds them under". But, in the same breath, we don't offer average users any real alternatives to those closed applications that doesn't require them to spend sometimes hundreds of hours configuring software, learning the deep internals of their computer, and compiling stuff from source. And then, we wonder why more users don't see the value of open source.
Open source, regardless of what the analyst say, will never be accepted by the mainstream until we as programmers get over the "I've got to be God" complex and realize that our software, no matter how "leet", is useless if nobody can use it.
I love open source. But geez, come on!
10 for x = 1 to 255
20 sound 1, x
30 next x
I'm not sure about the syntax of line 20 anymore but it basically played an annoying beep that escalated in pitch until it wasn't really even audible anymore. I can't count the number of times I've pissed people off with that. LOL
Regardless of how we think Google might change as a result of going public, I think we should at the very least all celebrate the facts that 1) A good tech company can survive, thrive, and even get investor funding in the post dot com bomb world and 2)the creators and employees of Google are finally getting their just rewards. Yeah, they're going to make a boatload of money and that, of itself, is a very cool thing.
Last time I checked, PERSONAL morals and ethics weren't defined by the actions of others or whether you "respected" someone or not. You're either moral or not. Nobody can "earn" your morality.
Yes. Check out www.mailworks.org. It offer 30 MB of storage, IMAP service, huge amount of bandwidth, etc.
Because Google is run by people who, not only love technology, but actually understand technology. These guys are technologists first and businesspeople second. They've created a geek playground, set their geeks free, and watched them play. The result of that play is what we love about Google.
That might all change once they go public. I hope that it doesn't but pouring buckets of money at people tends to oftentimes have a negative effect. I suppose we shall wait and see.
Privacy invasion is a lot like being attacked by a hacker: yes the potential is out there. But what are the realistic chances that any one person will be the target of such an an attack? What makes YOU so special that a service with say 30 million members would focus on YOUR email and hand read it? We have to balance chance with statistics and reality.
I signed up for my GMail account on yesterday and there certainly are VERY unobtrusive text ads (similar to the ones used on Google Search) on the right hand side of the page. Perhaps older GMail accounts don't have this though. Either way, they are extremely unobtrusive and don't effect the experience at all. I wish all of the email providers (like they'll be there long once GMail launches) would do this with their ads.
For anyone interested, I've posted a brief review of the GMail service in my blog. I'll be honest, this is a mindblowing service. Absolutely world-class all the way.
While I am not a chemist and can't offer a hard answer on this I can say this: consider that every time you mix two substances you produce a chemical reaction. Depending on what's in the ink or your marker I could see how that might produce very strong, and very damaging, reactions that could toast your CD. Maybe not right away but it definately could reduce it's lifetime.
1) Become a professional salesperson
2) Hone your skills by selling OS software
3) Get hired by Microsoft
4) Profit!
Seriously though, I think this shows that Microsoft seeks talanted people from everywhere regardless of your background. Sure, it's probably quite a score in their eyes to get someone who was so successful selling OS software but it's great that he's being rewarded for being good at his profession.