If you're looking for a job as an editor, ultimately, then you really have to learn to use an avid. they're strange beasts, beautiful and stupid in equal measure, but there's no substitute if you're working to broadcast quality on anything over 5 minutes long.
you might well be able to pick up a used mac-based avid at a reasonable price (ie four figures instead of six). No one can edit all the time, so consider sharing it between three or four people and expect to spend some serious money on scsi disks (and ideally a proper monitor and desk...).
we use an old quadra 900-based system that would be an antique in any other setting, and it works fine.
but check it carefully: these machines get used 18 hours a day from the day they're bought until just before they break forever.
if you just want to make films for your own art or satisfaction, then our experience has shown that you can't beat a fast powerbook, a DV camera and final cut. it's a fabulous toy box, and only disk space holds it back. we're using the old sony dv1000 camera, but the canon xl1 is looking like a better investment these days.
personally i hate premiere, but i know a couple of editors who happily use it on their messing about system, so ymmv.
it's not just the ergonomics of the controller, though i think sony's analog pads are nearly perfect - but the fact that the whole experience of the game is constructed around that simple direction+button interface.
more than anything else, that promotes a pick-up-and-try-it approach which more often than not works. When did you ever see a pc game that you could just have a go at without reading a thing?
my best example is playing metal gear solid via vgs on a powerbook. you can't beat it for train-journey entertainment, but as a gaming setup it's vastly poorer than the playstation itself.
so here's hoping for halflife 2 on playstation 2...
the oscars ceremony decides to show people backstage and to reveal a little of the inner workings of the movies it promotes. this isn't irony, let alone interactivity. it's not reflexive, it's not insightful, it's not even novel.
all that happened was the producer of the show got a dvd player for christmas and thought the documentary about the techniques behind leonardo's floppy fringe was kewl.
mr katz's attempts to dignify this nonsense with references to genuinely provocative (if rather dull) works of art only serve to highlight the banality of his attempts to throw geeky tropes at the daily headlines and see if they stick.
we had this same problem a year or two ago and ended up taking the smallest laptop-with-modem we could lay hands on and borrowing phone jacks wherever we went. supermarkets, filling stations, bars. you'd be surprised. it's not quite as easy as plugging in a nokia but you certainly get into conversations.
local calls will be free, remember, and being from england automatically makes you well-spoken and novel. or the bad guy in die hard 7, i guess. you don't look like charles manson, do you?
it was cheaper for us to get a local isp than to roam on pipex or anyone else, but if you're crossing state lines all the time then you might have to aol or something horrible like that.
almost right: it's pong that you can play in OF. You can play breakout in macsbug, if you like.
btw, if that sort of computerised residual brainstem activity appeals, then you'll probably also want the interface hack that renders the MacOS interface into ascii art.
my guess was that the native instruction set might just be held under wraps until it settles down. the two chips so far revealed differ in their optimisation, for example (the 5400 is slightly better suited to running 16bit code), but once you reach the abstract layer of x86 instructions they are identical.
with this approach nobody writes code for the VLIW instruction set, so nobody cares if they change it to something entirely different next time around when they think of a new hack.
i have to applaud their uncanny ability to produce gear that i either need or, more often, want. there must be dozens of sony logos here, from the beta deck to the playstation and not counting all the cds.
but microsoft is nothing next to sony. ms is a niche company with a modishly inflated paper value and a nouveau-riche disdain for the long-term good of its user base. it's trying to diversify, sure, and corbis might turn out to be super-sinister one day, but in its wildest dreams it can't approach sony's iron grip on the media supply chain.
perhaps there ought to be some sort of hardware/software rubicon: if you make the hardware, you may not profit from the software, and vice versa.
that would have hampered ms somewhat too, if it was written to disallow their bundling protection racket, but it would cripple sony and many of the other real corporate predators.
ps and have you seen what's happened to berlin? they gave it to sony on a plate and said thank you. anyone remember the dish with the death wish in hhgtg? eek.
so reply telling them that any IDG publication that makes use of the word 'sendmail' must be withdrawn and pulped immediately, as you have selectively and unconditionally withdrawn their permission to use your mark.
not that it would make a blind bit of difference. this sounds like the sort of legal posturing that companies indulge in just in case they later need to point out that they did so.
incidentally, this has accidentally been through both a mac and a linux box since leaving ms, and is therefore highly offensive to every single person who reads/. Handle with care.
Microsoft Security Bulletin
There is no "Back Door" in Windows
Originally Posted: September 03, 1999
Summary A report alleges that Microsoft "may have installed a 'back door' for the National Security Agency... making it orders of magnitude easier for the US government to access their computers". This allegation is false.
What's the allegation? The report alleges that a cryptographic key that ships as part of the CryptoAPI architecture is labeled "NSA key" and constitutes a "back door" that could be used by government agencies to start or stop system security services on user's computers.
Is the allegation true? No. Microsoft does not leave "back doors" in our products. This is in keeping with our historical stance on this issue. For instance, we have opposed the various key escrow proposals that have been suggested by the government, because we because we don't believe they are in the best interests of consumers or the industry.
Are there two keys? Yes. However, both are Microsoft keys. We do not share them with any third party, including the National Security Agency or any other government agency.
What's CryptoAPI? CryptoAPI is a Microsoft technology for providing cryptographic services. Vendors can develop stand-alone cryptographic modules called Cryptographic Service Providers (CSPs), which can then be called by any program via the CryptoAPI interface. For more information on CryptoAPI, see http://www.microsof t.com/security/tech/cryptoapi/default.asp.
What are the keys in question? The keys are used to verify the digital signatures on CSPs.
Why do CSPs have to be signed? And why by Microsoft? CryptoAPI is subject US export laws regarding cryptography. One element of this requires Microsoft to ensure that CryptoAPI will only load CSPs that meet US cryptographic export laws. This is done by digitally signing all CSPs. Before it loads a CSP, CryptoAPI verifies that the CSP has been digitally signed. Part of Microsoft's responsibility as the vendor for CryptoAPI is to sign the CSPs.
When a vendor has a new CSP that they want to release, they submit it for signing and show that all export licensing has been received. Microsoft then digitally signs the CSP, and it can thereafter be used by CryptoAPI.
Why are there two keys? There is a primary and a backup key.
Why is a backup key needed? The backup key is needed for disaster recovery. To see why, suppose we had only one signing key. If a natural disaster destroyed the building in which it were kept, all of the previously-signed CSPs would continue to function normally, because the key used for verification exists in every copy of Windows. However, Microsoft would need to sign future CSPs using a new key. In order for these CSPs to be verified, matching key material would need to be provided to all of the millions of customers using Windows95, 98 and WindowsNT. Clearly, this would be a massive undertaking.
This is why there are two keys. If something befell the primary key, Microsoft could thereafter sign CSPs using the backup key. Because the backup is already in every copy of Windows, there would be no disruption to customers.
Why the backup key labeled "NSA key"? This is simply an unfortunate name. The NSA performs the technical review for all US cryptographic export requests. The keys in question are the ones that allow us to ensure compliance with the NSA's technical review. Therefore, they came to known within Microsoft as "the NSA keys", and this name was included in the symbol information for one of the keys. However, Microsoft holds these keys and does not share them with anyone, including the NSA.
I heard that there is a third key in Windows2000. Is this true? There is a third key present in the beta versions of Windows2000, but it does not provide a "back door". It is simply a test key that allows the developers to sign test CSPs while Windows2000 is under development. It will not be present in the production version of Windows2000.
Does this have any effect on CryptoAPI's compliance with US export law? No. The CryptoAPI architecture is fully compliant with US export law.
the OPL is a direct descendant of the GPL, so i suppose the rather ambitious self-abbreviation is forgiveable. it has the same enforcement of hereditary freedom, the same indemnifications and the same charge-if-you must clause.
This is a problem with any collaborative document if there's a lag (see any irc transcript for incomprehensible proof). the system is slow to respond - too many loops, too much lag - which means that tendencies can be exaggerated or suppressed in unrealistic ways and we get chaos where we wanted homeostasis.
you can give the system authority over the mod, as someone suggested, and disallow their action if the situation has changed since they acted, but what if they would still want their action to take effect? the whole point of moderation is that the system can't judge.
but the alternative is an administrative equivalent of all those posts that say 'first!' from about halfway down the list.
btw, can any comment containing the word 'first' be demoted by 100? apart from this one.
i can see two options, both pretty superficial.
you could indicate each comment's direction of travel (2 and rising, 2 and falling, -143 and plummetting, you know), so that people see that others are acting.
or you can do the state comparison, but include a verification step: mod issues instruction to drop from 2 to 1. message is meanwhile already at 1. system notices, informs mod, offers 'do it anyway' button. mod can either vent spleen or save token for later.
i love the fact that this motivates people to consider the quality of their contributions, and the limited purse is a very smart move.
but it's all a bit feudal, isn't it? rob the conqueror handing out baronies to a few of his trusted confidants, then having them eliminated by shuffling men with squints if they start to undermine his authority.
sounds like fun, mind.
so how about turning moderators' points into a currency?
it seems to me that the point is to broaden the distribution of authority while trying to concentrate it in areas where it will be exercised wisely.
so let's say that when a moderator hits '+', she transfers a point from her account to the account of the author. when she hits '-', a point is transferred from both the mod and the author to the central bank; if the author has none, she goes into debt. if the mod has none, she can't act (as now).
(It's obviously important that promoting and demoting cost the same)
all posts from an author enter the system with a score based on their current balance. just to firm up the incentive.
people who demonstrate quality and diligence can be rewarded with a stipend of twenty or thirty points a week (or more), to spend as they see fit (which is pretty much what happens now).
and not even rob should be allowed to raid the bank: the system would have to be carefully balanced so that the flows into and out of the bank were about the same and the overall number of points remained in proportion to the level of activity, or it would all go boom-and-bust and the railroad tycoons would move in.
then you only have to solve the problems of vindictiveness, conformity, cliquery and http-lag (not in that order).
and if/.'s path remains hyperbolic, you can start printing banknotes in about 5 years time.
I think there's a lot of truth in this, but in reality most people occupy a position between the two poles you describe. Every project combines artistry with expediency, and we are always trying to increase the former while others pile on the latter.
but then i also think you forget the third category: between artists and drones there's a broad group of craftspeople whose satisfaction comes from the artists' criteria of elegance and necessity, but whose domain is use rather than contemplation. that's probably as true for coders as it is for designers (and people who make wardrobes), and in each case the thing created finds its expression by working with people.
for a truly elegant solution, in the vast majority of cases, you have to think about the cycles that people waste as well as those wasted by the machine. sometimes a perfect minimalism can achive both (i wish), sometimes one suffers from clutter for the sake of the other.
the problem, as always, is how to bind together diverse efforts and motives. i suspect that the bazaar actually suits craftspeople better than any others, whereas the output of artists tends to end up hung on the walls of the cathedral...
Slashdot Mirror
If you're looking for a job as an editor, ultimately, then you really have to learn to use an avid. they're strange beasts, beautiful and stupid in equal measure, but there's no substitute if you're working to broadcast quality on anything over 5 minutes long.
you might well be able to pick up a used mac-based avid at a reasonable price (ie four figures instead of six). No one can edit all the time, so consider sharing it between three or four people and expect to spend some serious money on scsi disks (and ideally a proper monitor and desk...).
we use an old quadra 900-based system that would be an antique in any other setting, and it works fine.
but check it carefully: these machines get used 18 hours a day from the day they're bought until just before they break forever.
if you just want to make films for your own art or satisfaction, then our experience has shown that you can't beat a fast powerbook, a DV camera and final cut. it's a fabulous toy box, and only disk space holds it back. we're using the old sony dv1000 camera, but the canon xl1 is looking like a better investment these days.
personally i hate premiere, but i know a couple of editors who happily use it on their messing about system, so ymmv.
it's not just the ergonomics of the controller, though i think sony's analog pads are nearly perfect - but the fact that the whole experience of the game is constructed around that simple direction+button interface.
more than anything else, that promotes a pick-up-and-try-it approach which more often than not works. When did you ever see a pc game that you could just have a go at without reading a thing?
my best example is playing metal gear solid via vgs on a powerbook. you can't beat it for train-journey entertainment, but as a gaming setup it's vastly poorer than the playstation itself.
so here's hoping for halflife 2 on playstation 2...
which part of this makes sense?
the oscars ceremony decides to show people backstage and to reveal a little of the inner workings of the movies it promotes. this isn't irony, let alone interactivity. it's not reflexive, it's not insightful, it's not even novel.
all that happened was the producer of the show got a dvd player for christmas and thought the documentary about the techniques behind leonardo's floppy fringe was kewl.
mr katz's attempts to dignify this nonsense with references to genuinely provocative (if rather dull) works of art only serve to highlight the banality of his attempts to throw geeky tropes at the daily headlines and see if they stick.
we had this same problem a year or two ago and ended up taking the smallest laptop-with-modem we could lay hands on and borrowing phone jacks wherever we went. supermarkets, filling stations, bars. you'd be surprised. it's not quite as easy as plugging in a nokia but you certainly get into conversations.
local calls will be free, remember, and being from england automatically makes you well-spoken and novel. or the bad guy in die hard 7, i guess. you don't look like charles manson, do you?
it was cheaper for us to get a local isp than to roam on pipex or anyone else, but if you're crossing state lines all the time then you might have to aol or something horrible like that.
almost right: it's pong that you can play in OF. You can play breakout in macsbug, if you like.
btw, if that sort of computerised residual brainstem activity appeals, then you'll probably also want the interface hack that renders the MacOS interface into ascii art.
my guess was that the native instruction set might just be held under wraps until it settles down. the two chips so far revealed differ in their optimisation, for example (the 5400 is slightly better suited to running 16bit code), but once you reach the abstract layer of x86 instructions they are identical.
with this approach nobody writes code for the VLIW instruction set, so nobody cares if they change it to something entirely different next time around when they think of a new hack.
i have to applaud their uncanny ability to produce gear that i either need or, more often, want. there must be dozens of sony logos here, from the beta deck to the playstation and not counting all the cds.
but microsoft is nothing next to sony. ms is a niche company with a modishly inflated paper value and a nouveau-riche disdain for the long-term good of its user base. it's trying to diversify, sure, and corbis might turn out to be super-sinister one day, but in its wildest dreams it can't approach sony's iron grip on the media supply chain.
perhaps there ought to be some sort of hardware/software rubicon: if you make the hardware, you may not profit from the software, and vice versa.
that would have hampered ms somewhat too, if it was written to disallow their bundling protection racket, but it would cripple sony and many of the other real corporate predators.
ps and have you seen what's happened to berlin? they gave it to sony on a plate and said thank you. anyone remember the dish with the death wish in hhgtg? eek.
so reply telling them that any IDG publication that makes use of the word 'sendmail' must be withdrawn and pulped immediately, as you have selectively and unconditionally withdrawn their permission to use your mark.
not that it would make a blind bit of difference. this sounds like the sort of legal posturing that companies indulge in just in case they later need to point out that they did so.
try http://www.av.com?text=yes
for those bad browser days
now, how could anyone refuse?
incidentally, this has accidentally been through both a mac and a linux box since leaving ms, and is therefore highly offensive to every single person who reads /. Handle with care.
Microsoft Security BulletinThere is no "Back Door" in Windows
Originally Posted: September 03, 1999
Summary
A report alleges that Microsoft "may have installed a 'back door' for the National Security Agency... making it orders of magnitude easier for the US government to access their computers". This allegation is false.
What's the allegation?
The report alleges that a cryptographic key that ships as part of the CryptoAPI architecture is labeled "NSA key" and constitutes a "back door" that could be used by government agencies to start or stop system security services on user's computers.
Is the allegation true?
No. Microsoft does not leave "back doors" in our products. This is in keeping with our historical stance on this issue. For instance, we have opposed the various key escrow proposals that have been suggested by the government, because we because we don't believe they are in the best interests of consumers or the industry.
Are there two keys?
Yes. However, both are Microsoft keys. We do not share them with any third party, including the National Security Agency or any other government agency.
What's CryptoAPI?
CryptoAPI is a Microsoft technology for providing cryptographic services. Vendors can develop stand-alone cryptographic modules called Cryptographic Service Providers (CSPs), which can then be called by any program via the CryptoAPI interface. For more information on CryptoAPI, see http://www.microsof t.com/security/tech/cryptoapi/default.asp .
What are the keys in question?
The keys are used to verify the digital signatures on CSPs.
Why do CSPs have to be signed? And why by Microsoft?
CryptoAPI is subject US export laws regarding cryptography. One element of this requires Microsoft to ensure that CryptoAPI will only load CSPs that meet US cryptographic export laws. This is done by digitally signing all CSPs. Before it loads a CSP, CryptoAPI verifies that the CSP has been digitally signed. Part of Microsoft's responsibility as the vendor for CryptoAPI is to sign the CSPs.
When a vendor has a new CSP that they want to release, they submit it for signing and show that all export licensing has been received. Microsoft then digitally signs the CSP, and it can thereafter be used by CryptoAPI.
Why are there two keys?
There is a primary and a backup key.
Why is a backup key needed?
The backup key is needed for disaster recovery. To see why, suppose we had only one signing key. If a natural disaster destroyed the building in which it were kept, all of the previously-signed CSPs would continue to function normally, because the key used for verification exists in every copy of Windows. However, Microsoft would need to sign future CSPs using a new key. In order for these CSPs to be verified, matching key material would need to be provided to all of the millions of customers using Windows95, 98 and WindowsNT. Clearly, this would be a massive undertaking.
This is why there are two keys. If something befell the primary key, Microsoft could thereafter sign CSPs using the backup key. Because the backup is already in every copy of Windows, there would be no disruption to customers.
Why the backup key labeled "NSA key"?
This is simply an unfortunate name. The NSA performs the technical review for all US cryptographic export requests. The keys in question are the ones that allow us to ensure compliance with the NSA's technical review. Therefore, they came to known within Microsoft as "the NSA keys", and this name was included in the symbol information for one of the keys. However, Microsoft holds these keys and does not share them with anyone, including the NSA.
I heard that there is a third key in Windows2000. Is this true?
There is a third key present in the beta versions of Windows2000, but it does not provide a "back door". It is simply a test key that allows the developers to sign test CSPs while Windows2000 is under development. It will not be present in the production version of Windows2000.
Does this have any effect on CryptoAPI's compliance with US export law?
No. The CryptoAPI architecture is fully compliant with US export law.
http://www.spanner.org/eclipse.html
the OPL is a direct descendant of the GPL, so i suppose the rather ambitious self-abbreviation is forgiveable. it has the same enforcement of hereditary freedom, the same indemnifications and the same charge-if-you must clause.
you don't have to provide source, though.
http://www.opencontent.org/opl.html
This is a problem with any collaborative document if there's a lag (see any irc transcript for incomprehensible proof). the system is slow to respond - too many loops, too much lag - which means that tendencies can be exaggerated or suppressed in unrealistic ways and we get chaos where we wanted homeostasis.
you can give the system authority over the mod, as someone suggested, and disallow their action if the situation has changed since they acted, but what if they would still want their action to take effect? the whole point of moderation is that the system can't judge.
but the alternative is an administrative equivalent of all those posts that say 'first!' from about halfway down the list.
btw, can any comment containing the word 'first' be demoted by 100? apart from this one.
i can see two options, both pretty superficial.
you could indicate each comment's direction of travel (2 and rising, 2 and falling, -143 and plummetting, you know), so that people see that others are acting.
or you can do the state comparison, but include a verification step:
mod issues instruction to drop from 2 to 1. message is meanwhile already at 1. system notices, informs mod, offers 'do it anyway' button. mod can either vent spleen or save token for later.
which is probably easier.
good work, tho.
will
i love the fact that this motivates people to consider the quality of their contributions, and the limited purse is a very smart move.
/.'s path remains hyperbolic, you can start printing banknotes in about 5 years time.
but it's all a bit feudal, isn't it? rob the conqueror handing out baronies to a few of his trusted confidants, then having them eliminated by shuffling men with squints if they start to undermine his authority.
sounds like fun, mind.
so how about turning moderators' points into a currency?
it seems to me that the point is to broaden the distribution of authority while trying to concentrate it in areas where it will be exercised wisely.
so let's say that when a moderator hits '+', she transfers a point from her account to the account of the author. when she hits '-', a point is transferred from both the mod and the author to the central bank; if the author has none, she goes into debt. if the mod has none, she can't act (as now).
(It's obviously important that promoting and demoting cost the same)
all posts from an author enter the system with a score based on their current balance. just to firm up the incentive.
people who demonstrate quality and diligence can be rewarded with a stipend of twenty or thirty points a week (or more), to spend as they see fit (which is pretty much what happens now).
and not even rob should be allowed to raid the bank: the system would have to be carefully balanced so that the flows into and out of the bank were about the same and the overall number of points remained in proportion to the level of activity, or it would all go boom-and-bust and the railroad tycoons would move in.
then you only have to solve the problems of vindictiveness, conformity, cliquery and http-lag (not in that order).
and if
will
I think there's a lot of truth in this, but in reality most people occupy a position between the two poles you describe. Every project combines artistry with expediency, and we are always trying to increase the former while others pile on the latter.
but then i also think you forget the third category: between artists and drones there's a broad group of craftspeople whose satisfaction comes from the artists' criteria of elegance and necessity, but whose domain is use rather than contemplation. that's probably as true for coders as it is for designers (and people who make wardrobes), and in each case the thing created finds its expression by working with people.
for a truly elegant solution, in the vast majority of cases, you have to think about the cycles that people waste as well as those wasted by the machine. sometimes a perfect minimalism can achive both (i wish), sometimes one suffers from clutter for the sake of the other.
the problem, as always, is how to bind together diverse efforts and motives. i suspect that the bazaar actually suits craftspeople better than any others, whereas the output of artists tends to end up hung on the walls of the cathedral...