After checking out that first link's pricing on the original Chainmail and associated prints, I think I'm going to dig up the 5 prints and other assorted stuff I've got boxed up somewhere provided someone hasn't chucked them, and check them out.
You've got time, you've got to spend it doing something. Now, whether that's staring at the wall slack-jawed or build a DVR time is up to you.
Seriously, you have to get away from your kids and wife sometime....;)
Now, for the humor impaired - the staring at the wall slack-jawed is a reference to watching TV, which ties in nicely with the parent's statement about "actually watching TV" which they imply is more important than actually doing something, like building a DVR.
As for regarding MythTV, if you buy your parts according to the Dragon reference system, you shouldn't have any issues whatsoever, although you may be spending a few more bucks than if you're willing to spend your own time working with a custom configuration of lowest $ parts.
And lastly, let me agree with the Mac Mini. It's slick!
You can with everything but cable and satellite provided HD content at the moment, because cable and satellite require those quirky DRM'd boxes.
Otherwise, hook up a tuner to the NTSC output of your box - voila. No violation of DMCA. OTA HD is directly receivable.
The cable and satellite companies have gone a long way towards the Ma Bell rent a phone model of business, and gone a step further with DMCA "protections" for things that should be readily available, as they have been with OTA. The FCC could fix this by only allowing signals to be sent via the same standards as that enjoyed by OTA broadcasters. They won't though, because they've been bought and paid for by the content ownership industry.
That was my point exactly. The TDP of the CPU is only part of the story. Comparing the TDP of an Intel chip to an AMD chip is apples and oranges, unless you include the NB chip as well.
Except that you are storing... wait for it... acoustic information. At least, that's the part I was discussing since TFA is about detecting tampering with images, video and audio data
Of course it is, that's what the data represents. But we're working on the data only. Which goes right back to signals processing. Because the processes in the article do not recreate the picture/movie/audio for examination, what they do is look for deviations in the data from what's expected. i.e., pixels that don't match/line-up, audio signals that suffer sudden phase disruptions or offsets. The little things you'd never see or hear.
First off, don't think of them as cores, but parallel processes. Once you get over that hump, you can start coding with parallelism in mind, and then you automatically make use of however many cores/thread processing units you have available. Why should it be 1 process/core as implied above? That's inefficient. I'd want the AI using all available cores when needed, giving processing time up for higher priority processes, such as user IO processes (I personally never want to wait on the game). Once CPUs get fast enough, and I believe we're there already, such a system will allow almost instantaneous response to user input while delivering a seriously mean AI.
OK, hopefully that clarifies a little something or two. As for finding fiddled with files (yes, that's another synonym) programmatically is going to require data processing by software more in line with that of signals processing of the sort done by... wait for it... signals processing applications, not "acoustics processing applications".
He said that audio signals were easier to spoof since our auditory senses are more forgiving. Also, TFA only mentions video work in any detail whatsoever, with references that video techniques might be applicable to audio as well.
And might I mention that this work is more in the fields of mathematics or signals filtering/processing than acoustics? (BTW, who gives degrees in acoustics? I know of ME's with specialization in acoustics engineering, but that's a whole different field than this signals analysis)
yep, that's true. And an 11X14 is $2.99 @ Costco, decent print quality too. up to 20X30 is $9.99, plus shipping & handling.
That should make you feel sick, it does me. And framing is another huge scam, but that's another whole topic. $3 for glass, about $4 for other materials, when bought in bulk, and about 10-20m or time, $200 for a picture like that. Ridiculous. Yet we pay it because we don't have the miter saw nor the mask cutter and we're too busy to research into what that would take to do ourselves.
True, but I've never bothered to even investigate this. I've only used professional photographers a few times, but it's definitely something to think about next time.
Then again, don't forget that you can copy them for yourself as many times as you want, copyright or not. You just can't publish them, meaning hand them out to friends, etc. Same rules as for audio or video recordings.
This trust has been abused. No law has been broken, it's true, but it's a pretty reprehensible thing to do. ...
but when you send me nude pics of your beautiful 300 lb naked self, you have no right to tell me what to do with them.
... No, you have no right to tell someone what to do with a picture you send them
Actually you do. You can sue for copyright infringement if those pictures are published. I could see a very unpleasant and large lawsuit for Fortuny for illegally publishing those pictures. In this case, that would be a suitable and justified lawsuit based on copyright. (Take a look at any portrait studio. The negatives and the rights belong to the studio, not you.)
As for the emails, if it wasn't processed, but a cut & paste in their entirety, there's another nice copyright infringement.
If you want to argue against either, remember this - they weren't "posted", but sent to an individual, so they never were in the public domain until Fortuny published them. (The state of the internet and privacy are irrelevant here)
1 computer should be able to service radio, tv, and serve as a computer simultaneously these days. That's what multi-core/CPU is all about. So you're back down to 1 box.
The only issue is the connectivity to the various locations you wish to have output to, and whatever input controls from those locations.
You know, if the patent office had to pay a fee, say $25K for every patent overturned in court because it is obvious or invalid, perhaps the USPTO would be a little more diligent in their research before granting a patent. Said fee would be paid to the successful defender.
To the OP, here's what I've personally seen: a large company with no processes in place doing ad hoc builds on local dev's machines with random tools going straight to production. This was replaced with a build machine and ant with much reluctance, as several developers had their own "job security" babies, as they were mysteriously the only ones that could build certain components, at least until the build machine became the only source of move to production code. However, the business went from ad-hoc builds to weekly builds. Yep - that's weekly builds. 72 hours for dev, 24 hours for UAT and functional testing, 48 hours for QA, then hand-off to ops for migration to production. Every week. Add up those hours and you'll understand why almost no one will work there that's been there.
OpenView and the like are hugely complicated tools for what they're trying to do, and extremely expensive. Application monitoring is definitely not its strongest forte, and adds to that high cost, depending upon the type of application and what you're trying to monitor/accomplish. You're much better off with a smaller application with optional agents and the ability to add plugins, both to the application and the agent.
Slashdot Mirror
What about Chainmail and Jeff Perren?
After checking out that first link's pricing on the original Chainmail and associated prints, I think I'm going to dig up the 5 prints and other assorted stuff I've got boxed up somewhere provided someone hasn't chucked them, and check them out.
You've got time, you've got to spend it doing something. Now, whether that's staring at the wall slack-jawed or build a DVR time is up to you.
;)
Seriously, you have to get away from your kids and wife sometime....
Now, for the humor impaired - the staring at the wall slack-jawed is a reference to watching TV, which ties in nicely with the parent's statement about "actually watching TV" which they imply is more important than actually doing something, like building a DVR.
For the case, here's a PC looking case, or a couple of more AV friendly cases by Zalman or a nice Silverstone that's almost indistinguishable from AV equipment.
As for regarding MythTV, if you buy your parts according to the Dragon reference system, you shouldn't have any issues whatsoever, although you may be spending a few more bucks than if you're willing to spend your own time working with a custom configuration of lowest $ parts.
And lastly, let me agree with the Mac Mini. It's slick!
You can with everything but cable and satellite provided HD content at the moment, because cable and satellite require those quirky DRM'd boxes.
Otherwise, hook up a tuner to the NTSC output of your box - voila. No violation of DMCA. OTA HD is directly receivable.
The cable and satellite companies have gone a long way towards the Ma Bell rent a phone model of business, and gone a step further with DMCA "protections" for things that should be readily available, as they have been with OTA. The FCC could fix this by only allowing signals to be sent via the same standards as that enjoyed by OTA broadcasters. They won't though, because they've been bought and paid for by the content ownership industry.
Knowing that cable/sat HD signals are more compressed, the OTA signal may be better anyways for those that are available OTA.
for a total of the most expensive system: $840, and will do more than a Tivo at the same price.
Cheapest system for HD dual tuner could be had for less than $500, with burning capability and no DRM nonsense, but no CableCard either.
That was my point exactly. The TDP of the CPU is only part of the story. Comparing the TDP of an Intel chip to an AMD chip is apples and oranges, unless you include the NB chip as well.
Of course it is, that's what the data represents. But we're working on the data only. Which goes right back to signals processing. Because the processes in the article do not recreate the picture/movie/audio for examination, what they do is look for deviations in the data from what's expected. i.e., pixels that don't match/line-up, audio signals that suffer sudden phase disruptions or offsets. The little things you'd never see or hear.
With all that said, why are the iMac, MacBook and MB Pro running hot then?
"Core Fore"
"Core 2 Dynamic Duo"
First off, don't think of them as cores, but parallel processes. Once you get over that hump, you can start coding with parallelism in mind, and then you automatically make use of however many cores/thread processing units you have available. Why should it be 1 process/core as implied above? That's inefficient. I'd want the AI using all available cores when needed, giving processing time up for higher priority processes, such as user IO processes (I personally never want to wait on the game). Once CPUs get fast enough, and I believe we're there already, such a system will allow almost instantaneous response to user input while delivering a seriously mean AI.
To the GP - nice tangential reference!
4 cores will sure help - I can now play 4 instances of solitaire simultaneously!!!!
I don't care who your are, now that's just funny!
spoof, tamper, alter, fidget with, fuck with
OK, hopefully that clarifies a little something or two. As for finding fiddled with files (yes, that's another synonym) programmatically is going to require data processing by software more in line with that of signals processing of the sort done by... wait for it... signals processing applications, not "acoustics processing applications".
It did. There were 2 DVDs for every "movie". 6 total.
He said that audio signals were easier to spoof since our auditory senses are more forgiving. Also, TFA only mentions video work in any detail whatsoever, with references that video techniques might be applicable to audio as well.
And might I mention that this work is more in the fields of mathematics or signals filtering/processing than acoustics? (BTW, who gives degrees in acoustics? I know of ME's with specialization in acoustics engineering, but that's a whole different field than this signals analysis)
yep, that's true. And an 11X14 is $2.99 @ Costco, decent print quality too. up to 20X30 is $9.99, plus shipping & handling.
That should make you feel sick, it does me. And framing is another huge scam, but that's another whole topic. $3 for glass, about $4 for other materials, when bought in bulk, and about 10-20m or time, $200 for a picture like that. Ridiculous. Yet we pay it because we don't have the miter saw nor the mask cutter and we're too busy to research into what that would take to do ourselves.
True, but I've never bothered to even investigate this. I've only used professional photographers a few times, but it's definitely something to think about next time.
Then again, don't forget that you can copy them for yourself as many times as you want, copyright or not. You just can't publish them, meaning hand them out to friends, etc. Same rules as for audio or video recordings.
Congratulations, you've just earned your PathFinder badge.
You're on /. and don't understand "^H"??!!!???
Hand in your geek badge immediately!!!
Actually you do. You can sue for copyright infringement if those pictures are published. I could see a very unpleasant and large lawsuit for Fortuny for illegally publishing those pictures. In this case, that would be a suitable and justified lawsuit based on copyright. (Take a look at any portrait studio. The negatives and the rights belong to the studio, not you.)
As for the emails, if it wasn't processed, but a cut & paste in their entirety, there's another nice copyright infringement.
If you want to argue against either, remember this - they weren't "posted", but sent to an individual, so they never were in the public domain until Fortuny published them. (The state of the internet and privacy are irrelevant here)
1 computer should be able to service radio, tv, and serve as a computer simultaneously these days. That's what multi-core/CPU is all about. So you're back down to 1 box.
The only issue is the connectivity to the various locations you wish to have output to, and whatever input controls from those locations.
You know, if the patent office had to pay a fee, say $25K for every patent overturned in court because it is obvious or invalid, perhaps the USPTO would be a little more diligent in their research before granting a patent. Said fee would be paid to the successful defender.
Well written.
To the OP, here's what I've personally seen: a large company with no processes in place doing ad hoc builds on local dev's machines with random tools going straight to production. This was replaced with a build machine and ant with much reluctance, as several developers had their own "job security" babies, as they were mysteriously the only ones that could build certain components, at least until the build machine became the only source of move to production code. However, the business went from ad-hoc builds to weekly builds. Yep - that's weekly builds. 72 hours for dev, 24 hours for UAT and functional testing, 48 hours for QA, then hand-off to ops for migration to production. Every week. Add up those hours and you'll understand why almost no one will work there that's been there.
OpenView and the like are hugely complicated tools for what they're trying to do, and extremely expensive. Application monitoring is definitely not its strongest forte, and adds to that high cost, depending upon the type of application and what you're trying to monitor/accomplish. You're much better off with a smaller application with optional agents and the ability to add plugins, both to the application and the agent.