But with that whole rant on broadband you have given an excellent example of why people outside of the technical world have so much trouble talking to techies.
This is Slashdot. You are in the technical world here, my friend. It is reasonable to make certain assumptions about the level of technical knowledge present - especially when you are responding to a post with a technical question in an article about a highly technical subject.
I didn't really intend my post to be a rant, per se, but I can see why you took it that way. Imprecise or simply incorrect usage of technical terms is a pet peeve of mine - because it contributes to the problems with "people talking to techies." If the techie describes something in precise terms, and it's misinterpreted or misapplied by the non-technical businessperson because the definition has been blurred or twisted by marketing or by ignorant salespeople, etc., making things up to cover their ignorance, everyone loses.
Unfortunately here it was completely out of context.
Nope, I will grant you that it might have been off-topic, but it was most certainly in context.
It is nice to know certain technical fields define the term a bit different.
And now you have nicely illustrated why the "techies" have such apparently extreme and unreasonable reactions when discussing things with non-techies. Did you learn nothing from the rant, Grasshopper? The technical fields all define the term the same way:
Broadband signalling involves transmitting using a range of different frequencies on the media.
Compare with Baseband, used in technologies like 100baseTX.
Period. That's what it means. Bandwidth or speed is something else entirely. It is marketing that is muddying the definition, and the result is that non-technical folks believe that the technical folks are saying something they're not. And then the consumer watchdog groups want to eliminate consumer confusion by mandating that the term should be interpreted the incorrect way! Even though there are several other, more precise terms for what the marketers are selling - high-speed, high bandwidth - which don't result in any confusion. And there isn't any other technical term which is an exact synonym for broadband.
Well, guess what.. I work for the government we know all about hairsplitting on definitions. Do you know the subtle differences between attribution, delegation and mandate?
No, I don't. I can guess that you're referring to contract law, but I cheerfully admit it when I have no knowledge in a given field.
But let me get this straight - are you saying that it's no big deal if I use those terms incorrectly or interchangeably? What if most people you dealt with used them wrong, and were defensive about it to boot? Would that cause any problems for you? Would it annoy you? There's a reason why the "subtle differences," as you say, matter.
Among other things, I work as an educator and a consultant, and I've had plenty of experience explaining highly technical subjects to laypeople - and starting many students on the path to become accomplished technologists. Since they are paying customers, I'm less cranky and more patient with them. You, on the other hand, are seeking free advice. And I found your original post somewhat vague and imprecise - which are not useful attributes of a business or technical plan. I simply chose to focus on a single aspect, as symptomatic of the whole.
One cannot just require everybody to have a virusscanner on their computer. One cannot disconnect somebody because their machine is acting weird. One cannot sysadmin a customers computer.
Of course you can. You can even get them to pay you to do it. I'll bet you that the next generation of Yahoo! for Broadband, AOL, and similar software will have firewalling and antivirus built in, and you w
I'm currently working on ideas to get real broadband (10 mbit)...
Broadband != high bandwidth.
Broadband signalling means multiple frequencies on the media, as opposed to baseband, where there is only one. Ethernet is a baseband technology.
These sorts of misconceptions result in well-defined technical terms such as broadband being re-defined for consumers as meaning something entirely different - because consumers have been led to believe it means something else. "Define broadband please - CA" It's one more way marketing continues to make life difficult for the technologists.
Please don't contribute to the problem. I stop taking people seriously pretty quickly when they use the CompUSA Salesdrone definition of a technical term, instead of the correct one.
As to your worm vector scenario, you aren't really describing anything different than what happens inside a large corporate LAN/WAN infrastructure. Use IDS software which can dynamically re-write your switch and router ACLs, educate your end-users as much as possible, and hire smart and driven sysadmins and techs who enjoy the challenge of keeping up with the black hats. Provide them with good equipment and quality caffeine.
And never sit back and relax, confident that you're secure.
Security is a process, not a product. It's an endless, arduous, thankless process. - Bruce Schneier
Windows 2003 already has Network Monitor Tools. You can find it in the Add Remove Programs.
For previous versions you can use the version that comes with SMS.
Netmon.exe has been included with Windows Server since NT 4.0.
However, the "free" version is crippled - it does not support promiscuous mode, among other things - you can only capture your own traffic and broadcast traffic.
The version included with SMS is fairly full-featured, and I used it for a long time, but Ethereal is at least as good, and you can't beat the price. I find it slightly harder to construct display filters with Ethereal, but its vastly more flexible capture filters beat Netmon all to hell.
...you can generally be more confident that this information is more transient than it will be on the Gmail system
Confident? That's a very dangerous assumption if you're that concerned about your privacy. I maintain quite a few corporate e-mail systems, and one of the biggest problems is convincing people to delete anything - even crap. It's not uncommon for the executives to have mailboxes which exceed 1GB.
I have every business email I have sent or received in the last six years. My assumption is that every email I send is more than likely still out there.
Don't want your messages to be readable by the 'wrong' people? Encrypt 'em real good, or don't use email.
Puts the negative answer first because many years ago a MacOS developer decided, with no evience, that people's focus is instinctively drawn to the top left and bottom right corner of the screen. Note the Gnome launcher is still in the bottom left...
No evidence? Google for Fitt's Law and consider that most folks mouse with the right hand, and enlightenment will come.
Scroll on down to the bottom of the Groklaw home page.
Site layout based on Woodlands theme by Bryan Bell.
There ya go.
Re:Who else _isn't_ intrigued by the Super Bowl?
on
Superbowling
·
· Score: 1
by your thinking, one could never change the roads! nope! too confusing!
Given that you actually bothered to look up and "fact check" the original post, I find your sarcastic and incorrect interpretation of "my thinking" disappointing.
Continuing this thread would be a waste of my time.
Re:the left turns were always illegal
on
Superbowling
·
· Score: 1
thats not new, nor are they legal when the train isn't coming.
That's not what I'm talking about. Have you seen the left turn lanes on Fannin? Sometimes they're a left turn lane. Sometimes they're the track! It's not designed with real drivers in mind. Certainly not real Houston drivers.
But in answer to your assertion - come on, this is a town where people make their own freeway exits if they don't like where the official ones are. If Houstonians perceive that there is no convenient way to get to where they want to go, they generally feel free to make an illegal turn or two. It's not like this behavior is anything new.
So reducing the number of lanes on two of the main Downtown - Med Center arteries, implementing new, unfamiliar signalling and lane configurations, ignoring the established behavior of the existing drivers, and expecting everything to work just fine is foolish and unrealistic. Especially for something we didn't really need in the first place.
...I can say that houston drivers are the most incompetent, impatient and downright insane drivers ive ever encountered.
I've been to a few places that can compete. But yeah, as a group, we don't drive friendly.
They would rather make illegal turns than circle around a couple of blocks with legal right turns as downtown requires to save themselves 30 seconds (which will probably be eaten up waiting at light anyway)
Or risk causing themselves or others flaming death by cutting over two lanes of traffic because they didn't read the signs indicating which lanes must exit for the last two @#$%& miles. Yeah, agreed, we drive like crap - but that's NOT what I'm talking about. The track is badly designed. The fact that Houston is filled with inconsiderate, scofflaw drivers simply makes it worse.
It doesnt help that HPD didn't really enforce the no left turns laws downtown before the rail was built.
Agreed. Of course the only place they enforce it now is near the trains.
Re:Who else _isn't_ intrigued by the Super Bowl?
on
Superbowling
·
· Score: 1
Stop blaming the trains, designers, and engineers. Start blaming the people who are causing these accidents: The drivers.
I blame bad design when it's bad design. I can't speak for other cities (besides New York and San Francisco, which have public transit that Houstonians can only wish for) but have you been to Houston? Having spent quite a bit of time in the Medical Center area last September, as the light rail track was being completed but before it went "online," I was convinced that the way the track was designed, there would be many accidents involving drivers making left turns into trains.
Now that the trains are running, it is unfortunately very clear that I was correct.
Yes, the drivers were making "illegal left turns," but that same turn might not have been illegal seconds earlier. The driver is being expected to look at a new signal, unlike anything else s/he would encounter on the road in Houston or indeed all of Texas, in addition to the usual traffic signal and observation of other vehicles. Add this to the fact that many drivers in the Downtown or especially the Medical Center area are looking around for an unfamiliar building (such as a specific hospital among dozens) and you have a problem - one that was easily predictable by a reasonably observant person as the track was being built.
Yes, the drivers are still in the wrong, but the designers/engineers are also very much in the wrong by assuming that drivers won't get confused by the unfamiliar lane configuration, signs and signals. Which, by the way, are also not bilingual - thus assuring that the trains will have a better opportunity to take out some of our Spanish or Vietnamese-speaking citizens.
Come on down to Houston. I'll buy you lunch. Then you and I can take a nice drive down Main street, dodging the trains, and once we get to the Medical Center, you can tell me whether you still think it's all the drivers' fault, or whether we Houstonians screwed ourselves with an expensive, useless, shiny new business-destroying death machine.
How about you guys move all your Senate and Politicians out to an unpopulated region and they can spend all day blowing smoke up each other's butts and creating stupid laws for each other while you guys get on living life the easy way without them?
Can I just ask... Is this why the big push for a manned mars landing?
Yes. We'll begin construction of the B Ark as soon as Congress approves the budget.
...teflon, anything small, anything modern, anything you see around you.....it has been made possable because of the work NASA did in the 60's to get men to the moon.
Teflon was not a product of the space program. It was discovered by fortuitous accident at DuPont in 1938. It saw its first major application in gaskets for the uranium hexafluoride tanks used to separate U-235 from U-238 for the Manhattan Project.
There were many new technologies developed during the US space program, but Teflon, or polymerized tetrafluoroethylene (PTFE) wasn't one of them.
The paper is definitely the hardest thing to get right.
Bleach $1 bills. Print $100 bills. No watermark, no plastic strip, but you do have the little colored threads, and the correct feel.
There are still a lot more barriers to creating a note that will fool someone who knows what to look for, but this would create a counterfeit bill that feels like and has the durability of US currency, because that's what you used.
Note that I haven't actually tried this (duh) but it seems like a reasonable hacker-style solution to me.
I'm self employed, so my boss has a sincere personal committment to my welfare and rights.
But I have been fortunate to be employed by, or associated with, some very progressive organizations.
The quadriplegic programmer was employed by Knowledge Based Systems in College Station, Texas. This was in the late eighties; I have no idea whether he's still there.
The sysadmin with the prosthetic claw was employed by the city of Bryan, Texas. I met him in a class in '96 or so. I learned several keyboard shortcuts and other tricks from him.
Digital is better suited for "art" photography actually as control over color is much better with high end camera and Epson photo printing.
Can't agree. Film captures more of the color information in an image, and at much higher effective resolution. And once I scan my transparency, I can take advantage of Photoshop, Epson photo printing, etc. The original image does not have to be captured digitally in order to be manipulated or printed using digital tools.
With the shutter latency of affordable digital cameras, they take some time to get used to, and even then I couldn't count how many priceless expressions that changed between when I press the shutter and capture an image.
ABSOLUTELY, and that's one of the things about my wife's digital camera that drives me crazy. It's great for photographing something for an eBay auction, but intensely frustrating when the subject is a puppy. That's not a problem inherent in digital photography, though - just a hardware/software deficiency on cheaper cameras. It won't be long before it's not an issue any more, especially since shutter latency is being discussed in most of the reviews of newer cameras. In the mean time, I still have my all-manual Nikon SLR for "real" photography.
...all employees probably have at least one hand (for example, to flip burgers or to punch in orders). Some goes for programmers, BTW.
One of my former employers had a programmer who was a quadriplegic. He did, in fact, have both hands, but he couldn't use them. He programmed using a stylus held in his mouth, one... key... at... a... time.
I also know a sysadmin who has only one hand, and it's a prosthetic claw.
I have a crystal ball, and I predict most replies to this story will wax romantic about how much better film is than digital.
You don't really need a crystal ball for that - especially when it happens to be true. Even though prices continue to come down, and memory and resolution continue to increase, I still can't afford to purchase a digital camera which could equal my old Nikon in image quality, color fidelity, and responsiveness.
Nevertheless, for day-to-day photography my wife's Canon digital camera is perfectly adequate, and I imagine many consumers feel the same way.
Kodak has been losing market share to Fuji for quite a while anyway, especially in the professional market. Kodak has been investing a lot of money and research in "Digital Color Science" for well over a decade - they've been preparing to abandon film for a long time.
Nitrogen is colorless, odorless, and not all that terribly reactive. The earth's atmosphere is ~78% nitrogen. Does it stink all the time where you are?
More likely, the bad smell is a combination of burnt proteins (ever had a bug die on top of a torchiere-style lamp?) and sulphur compounds.
Nope, because I essentially agree with everything you just said. I've never just been talking about what would work, other that pointing out that ~100 dpi wouldn't. I've been talking about how I would do it.
AND I apologize for the snarky proofreading comment. As was inevitable, of course, I made an editing error in my own post. And I agree with you on the integrated spell-checker.
Like I'm going to see this with the unaided eye that this counterfit bill was only printed at 600dpi?
Well, I don't know what you can or can't see, but I can. I spent years staring at film and veloxes. My department considered ~900 dpi to be the point where the scan became essentially indistinguishable to the unaided eye from the the original line art.
Do most people look at their money closely enough to notice? Heck, no. You could easily pass a 600 dpi bill. I've seen cashiers at a former employer accept $1 bills with corners from $20s taped on as twenties.
But in the context of my post, I was specifically referring to reproducing the micro text on modern US paper money - such as the line around the portrait on the $20, or the line under the portrait and the text inside the lower-left "10" on the $10. That feature was designed to aid in detecting counterfeits produced or printed on color laser copiers - by becoming illegible blobs when copied at low resolution.
Considering that I had prefaced my statement by saying, "If I were attempting to accurately reproduce currency..." I stand by my statement that for this purpose 600 dpi is low resolution.
What you claim to be able to see or not see is irrelevant. Considering that you didn't bother to proofread what is essentially a single line post, I suspect that there's quite a bit you don't notice.
I'm guessing you haven't worked in graphic arts - at least not at a service bureau or print shop.
A continuous-tone image (photographic image) might look ok at ~100 dpi (or 36 pixels per cm) on your screen but it will be painfully obvious that it's a scan when you print it - even on a crappy 300 dpi laser or inkjet. You'll see the pixels.
A glossy magazine image, printed at a 150 or 175 line screen, is usually 300 dpi relative to the output size. But that's a halftone image - little dots and rosettes. If something consists mostly of line art - like an engraved bank note, you'll see stairstep "jaggies" visible to the naked eye until you get up into at least the 900 dpi range.
If I were attempting to accurately reproduce currency, I'd scan at the highest resolution my scanner could handle - around 4000 to 8000 dpi for a professional drum scanner.
Take a look at your currency - some of the decorative borders, such as the one around the portrait, are actually very small text, which becomes illegible if photocopied or scanned at low resolution. And for this purpose, 600 dpi is low resolution. 100 dpi would be garbage.
If the body of the message contains no URLs or e-mail addresses - just random words - then I delete them without tagging them as SPAM.
It's my opinion that that is indeed the "best thing to do" with such messages, but I do not claim to be an expert on Bayesian filtering. It may not make a statistically significant difference.
Perhaps someone who is an expert would care to comment?
I don't care what kind of firewall you've got - if you're running unpatched systems behind it, all it takes is one person to bring in an infected laptop and hammer the soft chewy center of your network from within.
Slashdot Mirror
This is Slashdot. You are in the technical world here, my friend. It is reasonable to make certain assumptions about the level of technical knowledge present - especially when you are responding to a post with a technical question in an article about a highly technical subject.
I didn't really intend my post to be a rant, per se, but I can see why you took it that way. Imprecise or simply incorrect usage of technical terms is a pet peeve of mine - because it contributes to the problems with "people talking to techies." If the techie describes something in precise terms, and it's misinterpreted or misapplied by the non-technical businessperson because the definition has been blurred or twisted by marketing or by ignorant salespeople, etc., making things up to cover their ignorance, everyone loses.
Unfortunately here it was completely out of context.
Nope, I will grant you that it might have been off-topic, but it was most certainly in context.
It is nice to know certain technical fields define the term a bit different.
And now you have nicely illustrated why the "techies" have such apparently extreme and unreasonable reactions when discussing things with non-techies. Did you learn nothing from the rant, Grasshopper? The technical fields all define the term the same way:
Broadband signalling involves transmitting using a range of different frequencies on the media.
Compare with Baseband, used in technologies like 100baseTX.
Period. That's what it means. Bandwidth or speed is something else entirely. It is marketing that is muddying the definition, and the result is that non-technical folks believe that the technical folks are saying something they're not. And then the consumer watchdog groups want to eliminate consumer confusion by mandating that the term should be interpreted the incorrect way! Even though there are several other, more precise terms for what the marketers are selling - high-speed, high bandwidth - which don't result in any confusion. And there isn't any other technical term which is an exact synonym for broadband.
Well, guess what.. I work for the government we know all about hairsplitting on definitions. Do you know the subtle differences between attribution, delegation and mandate?
No, I don't. I can guess that you're referring to contract law, but I cheerfully admit it when I have no knowledge in a given field.
But let me get this straight - are you saying that it's no big deal if I use those terms incorrectly or interchangeably? What if most people you dealt with used them wrong, and were defensive about it to boot? Would that cause any problems for you? Would it annoy you? There's a reason why the "subtle differences," as you say, matter.
Among other things, I work as an educator and a consultant, and I've had plenty of experience explaining highly technical subjects to laypeople - and starting many students on the path to become accomplished technologists. Since they are paying customers, I'm less cranky and more patient with them. You, on the other hand, are seeking free advice. And I found your original post somewhat vague and imprecise - which are not useful attributes of a business or technical plan. I simply chose to focus on a single aspect, as symptomatic of the whole.
One cannot just require everybody to have a virusscanner on their computer. One cannot disconnect somebody because their machine is acting weird. One cannot sysadmin a customers computer.
Of course you can. You can even get them to pay you to do it. I'll bet you that the next generation of Yahoo! for Broadband, AOL, and similar software will have firewalling and antivirus built in, and you w
Broadband != high bandwidth.
Broadband signalling means multiple frequencies on the media, as opposed to baseband, where there is only one. Ethernet is a baseband technology.
These sorts of misconceptions result in well-defined technical terms such as broadband being re-defined for consumers as meaning something entirely different - because consumers have been led to believe it means something else. "Define broadband please - CA" It's one more way marketing continues to make life difficult for the technologists.
Please don't contribute to the problem. I stop taking people seriously pretty quickly when they use the CompUSA Salesdrone definition of a technical term, instead of the correct one.
As to your worm vector scenario, you aren't really describing anything different than what happens inside a large corporate LAN/WAN infrastructure. Use IDS software which can dynamically re-write your switch and router ACLs, educate your end-users as much as possible, and hire smart and driven sysadmins and techs who enjoy the challenge of keeping up with the black hats. Provide them with good equipment and quality caffeine.
And never sit back and relax, confident that you're secure.
Security is a process, not a product. It's an endless, arduous, thankless process. - Bruce Schneier
For previous versions you can use the version that comes with SMS.
Netmon.exe has been included with Windows Server since NT 4.0.
However, the "free" version is crippled - it does not support promiscuous mode, among other things - you can only capture your own traffic and broadcast traffic.
The version included with SMS is fairly full-featured, and I used it for a long time, but Ethereal is at least as good, and you can't beat the price. I find it slightly harder to construct display filters with Ethereal, but its vastly more flexible capture filters beat Netmon all to hell.
Confident? That's a very dangerous assumption if you're that concerned about your privacy. I maintain quite a few corporate e-mail systems, and one of the biggest problems is convincing people to delete anything - even crap. It's not uncommon for the executives to have mailboxes which exceed 1GB.
I have every business email I have sent or received in the last six years. My assumption is that every email I send is more than likely still out there.
Don't want your messages to be readable by the 'wrong' people? Encrypt 'em real good, or don't use email.
"Don't send anything over email that you wouldn't want published on the front page of USA Today."
No evidence? Google for Fitt's Law and consider that most folks mouse with the right hand, and enlightenment will come.
Site layout based on Woodlands theme by Bryan Bell.
There ya go.
Given that you actually bothered to look up and "fact check" the original post, I find your sarcastic and incorrect interpretation of "my thinking" disappointing.
Continuing this thread would be a waste of my time.
That's not what I'm talking about. Have you seen the left turn lanes on Fannin? Sometimes they're a left turn lane. Sometimes they're the track! It's not designed with real drivers in mind. Certainly not real Houston drivers.
But in answer to your assertion - come on, this is a town where people make their own freeway exits if they don't like where the official ones are. If Houstonians perceive that there is no convenient way to get to where they want to go, they generally feel free to make an illegal turn or two. It's not like this behavior is anything new.
So reducing the number of lanes on two of the main Downtown - Med Center arteries, implementing new, unfamiliar signalling and lane configurations, ignoring the established behavior of the existing drivers, and expecting everything to work just fine is foolish and unrealistic. Especially for something we didn't really need in the first place.
I've been to a few places that can compete. But yeah, as a group, we don't drive friendly.
They would rather make illegal turns than circle around a couple of blocks with legal right turns as downtown requires to save themselves 30 seconds (which will probably be eaten up waiting at light anyway)
Or risk causing themselves or others flaming death by cutting over two lanes of traffic because they didn't read the signs indicating which lanes must exit for the last two @#$%& miles. Yeah, agreed, we drive like crap - but that's NOT what I'm talking about. The track is badly designed. The fact that Houston is filled with inconsiderate, scofflaw drivers simply makes it worse.
It doesnt help that HPD didn't really enforce the no left turns laws downtown before the rail was built.
Agreed. Of course the only place they enforce it now is near the trains.
I blame bad design when it's bad design. I can't speak for other cities (besides New York and San Francisco, which have public transit that Houstonians can only wish for) but have you been to Houston? Having spent quite a bit of time in the Medical Center area last September, as the light rail track was being completed but before it went "online," I was convinced that the way the track was designed, there would be many accidents involving drivers making left turns into trains.
Now that the trains are running, it is unfortunately very clear that I was correct.
Yes, the drivers were making "illegal left turns," but that same turn might not have been illegal seconds earlier. The driver is being expected to look at a new signal, unlike anything else s/he would encounter on the road in Houston or indeed all of Texas, in addition to the usual traffic signal and observation of other vehicles. Add this to the fact that many drivers in the Downtown or especially the Medical Center area are looking around for an unfamiliar building (such as a specific hospital among dozens) and you have a problem - one that was easily predictable by a reasonably observant person as the track was being built.
Yes, the drivers are still in the wrong, but the designers/engineers are also very much in the wrong by assuming that drivers won't get confused by the unfamiliar lane configuration, signs and signals. Which, by the way, are also not bilingual - thus assuring that the trains will have a better opportunity to take out some of our Spanish or Vietnamese-speaking citizens.
Come on down to Houston. I'll buy you lunch. Then you and I can take a nice drive down Main street, dodging the trains, and once we get to the Medical Center, you can tell me whether you still think it's all the drivers' fault, or whether we Houstonians screwed ourselves with an expensive, useless, shiny new business-destroying death machine.
In this case, remove the space character after &item.
Or you could click on the hyperlink helpfully posted by corbettw above in message 8112289.
Can I just ask... Is this why the big push for a manned mars landing?
Yes. We'll begin construction of the B Ark as soon as Congress approves the budget.
Smell the irony.
Teflon was not a product of the space program. It was discovered by fortuitous accident at DuPont in 1938. It saw its first major application in gaskets for the uranium hexafluoride tanks used to separate U-235 from U-238 for the Manhattan Project.
There were many new technologies developed during the US space program, but Teflon, or polymerized tetrafluoroethylene (PTFE) wasn't one of them.
Bleach $1 bills. Print $100 bills. No watermark, no plastic strip, but you do have the little colored threads, and the correct feel.
There are still a lot more barriers to creating a note that will fool someone who knows what to look for, but this would create a counterfeit bill that feels like and has the durability of US currency, because that's what you used.
Note that I haven't actually tried this (duh) but it seems like a reasonable hacker-style solution to me.
I'm self employed, so my boss has a sincere personal committment to my welfare and rights.
But I have been fortunate to be employed by, or associated with, some very progressive organizations.
The quadriplegic programmer was employed by Knowledge Based Systems in College Station, Texas. This was in the late eighties; I have no idea whether he's still there.
The sysadmin with the prosthetic claw was employed by the city of Bryan, Texas. I met him in a class in '96 or so. I learned several keyboard shortcuts and other tricks from him.
Can't agree. Film captures more of the color information in an image, and at much higher effective resolution. And once I scan my transparency, I can take advantage of Photoshop, Epson photo printing, etc. The original image does not have to be captured digitally in order to be manipulated or printed using digital tools.
With the shutter latency of affordable digital cameras, they take some time to get used to, and even then I couldn't count how many priceless expressions that changed between when I press the shutter and capture an image.
ABSOLUTELY, and that's one of the things about my wife's digital camera that drives me crazy. It's great for photographing something for an eBay auction, but intensely frustrating when the subject is a puppy. That's not a problem inherent in digital photography, though - just a hardware/software deficiency on cheaper cameras. It won't be long before it's not an issue any more, especially since shutter latency is being discussed in most of the reviews of newer cameras. In the mean time, I still have my all-manual Nikon SLR for "real" photography.
One of my former employers had a programmer who was a quadriplegic. He did, in fact, have both hands, but he couldn't use them. He programmed using a stylus held in his mouth, one... key... at... a... time.
I also know a sysadmin who has only one hand, and it's a prosthetic claw.
You don't really need a crystal ball for that - especially when it happens to be true. Even though prices continue to come down, and memory and resolution continue to increase, I still can't afford to purchase a digital camera which could equal my old Nikon in image quality, color fidelity, and responsiveness.
Nevertheless, for day-to-day photography my wife's Canon digital camera is perfectly adequate, and I imagine many consumers feel the same way.
Kodak has been losing market share to Fuji for quite a while anyway, especially in the professional market. Kodak has been investing a lot of money and research in "Digital Color Science" for well over a decade - they've been preparing to abandon film for a long time.
More likely, the bad smell is a combination of burnt proteins (ever had a bug die on top of a torchiere-style lamp?) and sulphur compounds.
Nope, because I essentially agree with everything you just said. I've never just been talking about what would work, other that pointing out that ~100 dpi wouldn't. I've been talking about how I would do it.
AND I apologize for the snarky proofreading comment. As was inevitable, of course, I made an editing error in my own post. And I agree with you on the integrated spell-checker.
Enjoy your tea.
Well, I don't know what you can or can't see, but I can. I spent years staring at film and veloxes. My department considered ~900 dpi to be the point where the scan became essentially indistinguishable to the unaided eye from the the original line art. Do most people look at their money closely enough to notice? Heck, no. You could easily pass a 600 dpi bill. I've seen cashiers at a former employer accept $1 bills with corners from $20s taped on as twenties.
But in the context of my post, I was specifically referring to reproducing the micro text on modern US paper money - such as the line around the portrait on the $20, or the line under the portrait and the text inside the lower-left "10" on the $10. That feature was designed to aid in detecting counterfeits produced or printed on color laser copiers - by becoming illegible blobs when copied at low resolution.
Considering that I had prefaced my statement by saying, "If I were attempting to accurately reproduce currency..." I stand by my statement that for this purpose 600 dpi is low resolution.
What you claim to be able to see or not see is irrelevant. Considering that you didn't bother to proofread what is essentially a single line post, I suspect that there's quite a bit you don't notice.
The NETLOGON process in NT has used MS-RPC since NT 3.1.
If you had an NT box with no RPC on it, it would be useless as a server. (Insert obvious smartass comment here)
If Slammer failed to infect your NT 3.51 box, it's because the buffer overflow failed on the old code.
A continuous-tone image (photographic image) might look ok at ~100 dpi (or 36 pixels per cm) on your screen but it will be painfully obvious that it's a scan when you print it - even on a crappy 300 dpi laser or inkjet. You'll see the pixels.
A glossy magazine image, printed at a 150 or 175 line screen, is usually 300 dpi relative to the output size. But that's a halftone image - little dots and rosettes. If something consists mostly of line art - like an engraved bank note, you'll see stairstep "jaggies" visible to the naked eye until you get up into at least the 900 dpi range.
If I were attempting to accurately reproduce currency, I'd scan at the highest resolution my scanner could handle - around 4000 to 8000 dpi for a professional drum scanner.
Take a look at your currency - some of the decorative borders, such as the one around the portrait, are actually very small text, which becomes illegible if photocopied or scanned at low resolution. And for this purpose, 600 dpi is low resolution. 100 dpi would be garbage.
It's my opinion that that is indeed the "best thing to do" with such messages, but I do not claim to be an expert on Bayesian filtering. It may not make a statistically significant difference.
Perhaps someone who is an expert would care to comment?
Those are intended to skew the statistics on Bayesian filters.
I don't care what kind of firewall you've got - if you're running unpatched systems behind it, all it takes is one person to bring in an infected laptop and hammer the soft chewy center of your network from within.
There is no substitute for defense-in-depth.