>> So you wrote an article about displaying an image on a remote X server and people are supposed to be impressed?
If you are able to read the paper (i.e., via a university IP address based subscription to J.Chem.Ed.), you'll see that the paper is 7 pages long and the supplemental information is 43 pages long.
It's a little more involved than you think. (i.e., the actual cryostat is connected to a Mercury-VX console computer that is capable of acquiring trillions of points per second). The Sun Ultra/10 workstation is connected to that console via a TCP connection. On the system administration side, it is incredibly complicated to remotely control an NMR spectrometer over the internet. I worked on this project for my M.S. in Chemistry and it took ~2.5 years to perfect it.
Of course, that's way off topic & I'm replying to a flaming AC... but now you know... and knowing is half the battle!!
"You mean like any other normal person who might be wanting to use such a product?"
And to that, I would say... Someone writing an article for publication in a peer-reviewed journal should become experienced in their area of research before attempting to publish their results!
For example, I'm sure you don't have much experience with Nuclear Magnetic Resonance imaging - And you might or might not have experience with X11 forwarding. But unless you are fluent with both of those topics, I would not expect you to attempt to publish a paper in a peer-reviewed journal discussing those topics! (Like I did, last December)
However, for the sake of presenting some evidence to back up what I'm saying here, I'll take your example of Consumer Reports.
From their site: CR has the most comprehensive auto-test program and reliability survey data of any U.S. publication; its auto experts have decades of experience in driving, testing, and reporting on cars.
There's really very little to be said in favor of Jonathan A. Zdiarski's "defence?" Now, I could start posting how ignorant that statement is, but then I'd just be rewriting Zdiarski's article. Cormack's entire test was flawed - He used SpamAssassin (95% accuracy) to create his 'ham' corpus. He used software versions that were 6+ months old. Even the email address he used for testing is incredibly unique and atypical! (He uses an address that he's had for 20+ years; One that has been posted all over the WWW numerous times. An address that has many forwarders pointing to it. How is that typical in any way??)
Ok, go read the article (don't just 'skim' it, as you mentioned), then come back and tell me why you believe he is only trying to 'sell' his product.
Please back up your claims with some evidence this time;-)
I just read the whole article - it does repeat itself a few times, but the author provides additional evidence each time his theses were reiterated:
1. Cormack is very inexperienced in the area of statistical filtering. Agreed!!!
2. Cormack went into the testing with many presuppositions. Also Agreed!!
And in case you're not familiar with the word presupposition: 1. To believe or suppose in advance.
2. To require or involve necessarily as an antecedent condition.
Overall, this is a very good article; Check it out if you haven't already done so!
With the two links in my previous post, you can download Autopatcher & WinXP SP1 from a different computer, burn them to a CD (once and for all), then use them on a new install of Windows XP!
The point of AutopatcherXP? (vs. just windowsupdate?)
Well, with Windowsupdate, you install IE6 SP1, reboot, WinXP SP1, reboot, WinXP Security Rollup, reboot, 28 remaining critical updates, reboot, DirectX 9, reboot, Windows Media Player 9, optional reboot.
With autopatchxp, you run it, click install, come back in 30 minutes and reboot once - and it's all done!
>> Autopatcher XP is for Windows XP with Service Pack 1 or 1a.
>> It won't help you if you don't have these installed yet
>> (i.e. new installation from original XP disk).
AutoPatcher was started in October of 2003. It was started by Jason Kelley and was a simple batch program that would install many updates silently. Upon reaching version 2.65, Jason was contacted by Antonis Kaladis, who offered to help make a VB front-end for the program. And thus, the current incarnation of AutoPatcher was born.
Not only does it install all your Windows updates with just one reboot, it can also (optionally) install many other programs such as the Windows XP Powertoys, IESpell, etc. There's even some registry config options such as increasing the max connections per server (IE) to something greater than 2.
>> I believe they already are! Remember the price hikes the RIAA wanted to impose? (I believe their goal was $2.99 per single (popular singles). If that's not 'embracing' the downloading channel, I don't know what is.
Some might say that this is their way of trying to kill this distribution channel.
>> Some might say that this is their way of trying to kill this distribution channel.
Haven't you seen Gladiator? Remember the embrace Lucius gave to his dad, Marcus Aurelius?
>> There may be workarounds, but there will also be a fair number of people who will not want to put forth the effort to deal with such workarounds. It is a matter of convenience.
It only takes one person to create a DRM-less digital copy & post it on the latest P2P network... convenience factor negated.
>> 1. Embraces and promotes the downloading channel (a la iTunes, et al).
I believe they already are! Remember the price hikes the RIAA wanted to impose? (I believe their goal was $2.99 per single (popular singles). If that's not 'embracing' the downloading channel, I don't know what is. (granted, this certainly wouldn't promote the downloading channel when the price per song is significantly higher than purchasing a CD...)
Good discussion on DRM The problem with trying to protect information with technology is that it has been shown repeatedly not to work. It only takes one person to crack the protection, and a million people can get a digital copy of the cracked work in days. During DEFCON, a digital security conference held in America last year, a Russian programmer called Dmitry Sklyarov illustrated this by showing how easy it was to circumvent the protection on Adobe's "E-Books". For this service to the public and to Adobe he was arrested and tried by the FBI, under the provision of the DMCA, the American version of the EUCD already part of US law since 1998.
Obviously, the same problem exists with the technology Macrovision & SunnComm are currently proposing. It just takes one person to create a DRM-less digital copy & post it on the latest P2P network...
> Yes,we know, but the author did say it was travelling in a "straight line", not in an earth orbit.
True, but due to gravity, nothing travels in a 'straight line...' (Even if you're looking at the instantaneous velocity, i.e., the tangent line to the arc - that's not a straight line - it's just a point)
So, as the ball is travelling, it is definitely accelerating in a couple ways: It's vertical (downward) speed is increasing and it's direction is changing (both due to gravity).
However, if the author was saying that the ball's horizontal speed was increasing, then obviously we would all disagree with him - without an on-ball propulsion system or a really strong wind (heh), a baseball cannot 'speed up.' Actually, now that I think about it, the moment you hit a baseball, the ball momentarily compresses - could it's decompression (which happens in the milliseconds after it loses contact with the bat) cause it's 'speed' to increase?
For an object to accelerate, it's 'speed' does not need to change... only it's velocity needs to change! Velocity is a vector quantity, so it has both a direction and a rate of motion attached to it.
Therefore, an object can be moving at a constant speed, but as long as it's 'direction' is changing, it is accelerating.
So a satellite that's orbiting the earth at a constant speed, is constantly accelerating since it's direction is constantly changing.
If some company is sending junk faxes for travel deals, and they list an 800 number that isn't their own, how are they going to make money?
Let me make it even clearer: If a spammer starts sending emails with nothing but a good deal at dell.com (for example), how will that make them any money unless it's Dell that is directly (or indirectly) sending the email?
Assuming the author of the ask slashdot question wasn't lying, the junk faxes tell you to call 1-800-328-9795 to buy their timeshares.
The only other possibility is people have been looking at this website and calling other numbers that are listed on it, and not the actual number off the junk fax (1-800-328-9795) - but it sounds like they are complaining about people calling 1-800-328-9795 to me... in which case they need to track down the junk faxer and tell them to stop advertising their company for them! (???)
In light of this worm, I wonder if Microsoft is going to make any changes to the new Windows XP SP2 firewall? (i.e., a self-monitoring 'heurtistic' process that watches for 'exploited-process-like-behavior.')
step 1) put a typo in clients.conf so radius dies altogether
step 2) fix the typo, but leave the IP mangled so your NAS doesn't work
step 3) fix ONE of the typos, leaving the other for good luck
step 4) ???
step 5) profit!
These guys are great... and they're in eastern Washington, too!:-)
Adjust your script so that there must be a 250 millisecond delay between knocks. (and, of course, check the originating IP address so that if someone else attempts to knock, it doesn't interrupt your knock sequence!)
A lot of clients in my department regularly ask me if they have a virus when they receive these mail gateway auto-replies. I came up with a good analogy that helps even the most technophobic user understand what's going on:
If I send a letter to George Bush using Saddam Hussein for the return address, the president will not believe that the letter is really from Iraq! Why? (other than Saddam being captured?) The postmark on the envelope will say Pullman, Wa!
Similarly, if the mail server looked at the address that actually sent the virus, it would see something like aol.com or texas-telecom.net. Instead, these mail servers just blindly believe that the virus was really sent from Client-A@wsu.edu. (I insert the client's actual email address here... that helps grab their attention if their mind was already wandering...)
Slashdot Mirror
The i is for incryption! [groan]
Hey, if you don't think anyone makes that spelling mistake, check out this link!
Sorry you added me to your foe's list :-(
I can get kinda direct in my posts sometimes - I didn't mean to cause any personal offense! (I even took the f out of RTA!)
My apologies if I've offended you...
Caleb
>> So you wrote an article about displaying an image on a remote X server and people are supposed to be impressed?
If you are able to read the paper (i.e., via a university IP address based subscription to J.Chem.Ed.), you'll see that the paper is 7 pages long and the supplemental information is 43 pages long.
It's a little more involved than you think. (i.e., the actual cryostat is connected to a Mercury-VX console computer that is capable of acquiring trillions of points per second). The Sun Ultra/10 workstation is connected to that console via a TCP connection. On the system administration side, it is incredibly complicated to remotely control an NMR spectrometer over the internet. I worked on this project for my M.S. in Chemistry and it took ~2.5 years to perfect it.
Of course, that's way off topic & I'm replying to a flaming AC... but now you know... and knowing is half the battle!!
"You mean like any other normal person who might be wanting to use such a product?"
...nevermind, I don't need to say anything else.
And to that, I would say... Someone writing an article for publication in a peer-reviewed journal should become experienced in their area of research before attempting to publish their results!
For example, I'm sure you don't have much experience with Nuclear Magnetic Resonance imaging - And you might or might not have experience with X11 forwarding. But unless you are fluent with both of those topics, I would not expect you to attempt to publish a paper in a peer-reviewed journal discussing those topics!
(Like I did, last December)
However, for the sake of presenting some evidence to back up what I'm saying here, I'll take your example of Consumer Reports.
From their site: CR has the most comprehensive auto-test program and reliability survey data of any U.S. publication; its auto experts have decades of experience in driving, testing, and reporting on cars.
RTA?
;-)
Read the article, then post!
There's really very little to be said in favor of Jonathan A. Zdiarski's "defence?"
Now, I could start posting how ignorant that statement is, but then I'd just be rewriting Zdiarski's article. Cormack's entire test was flawed - He used SpamAssassin (95% accuracy) to create his 'ham' corpus. He used software versions that were 6+ months old. Even the email address he used for testing is incredibly unique and atypical! (He uses an address that he's had for 20+ years; One that has been posted all over the WWW numerous times. An address that has many forwarders pointing to it. How is that typical in any way??)
Ok, go read the article (don't just 'skim' it, as you mentioned), then come back and tell me why you believe he is only trying to 'sell' his product.
Please back up your claims with some evidence this time
I just read the whole article - it does repeat itself a few times, but the author provides additional evidence each time his theses were reiterated:
1. Cormack is very inexperienced in the area of statistical filtering. Agreed!!!
2. Cormack went into the testing with many presuppositions. Also Agreed!!
And in case you're not familiar with the word presupposition:
1. To believe or suppose in advance.
2. To require or involve necessarily as an antecedent condition.
Overall, this is a very good article; Check it out if you haven't already done so!
??????
With the two links in my previous post, you can download Autopatcher & WinXP SP1 from a different computer, burn them to a CD (once and for all), then use them on a new install of Windows XP!
The point of AutopatcherXP? (vs. just windowsupdate?)
Well, with Windowsupdate, you install IE6 SP1, reboot,
WinXP SP1, reboot,
WinXP Security Rollup, reboot,
28 remaining critical updates, reboot,
DirectX 9, reboot,
Windows Media Player 9, optional reboot.
With autopatchxp, you run it, click install, come back in 30 minutes and reboot once - and it's all done!
Now do you see what its purpose is??
>> Autopatcher XP is for Windows XP with Service Pack 1 or 1a.
;-)
>> It won't help you if you don't have these installed yet
>> (i.e. new installation from original XP disk).
Download WinXP SP1 and Autopatcher.
In fact, they'll both fit on one CD
I can't believe nobody's posted this yet!
Autopatcher
AutoPatcher was started in October of 2003. It was started by Jason Kelley and was a simple batch program that would install many updates silently. Upon reaching version 2.65, Jason was contacted by Antonis Kaladis, who offered to help make a VB front-end for the program. And thus, the current incarnation of AutoPatcher was born.
Not only does it install all your Windows updates with just one reboot, it can also (optionally) install many other programs such as the Windows XP Powertoys, IESpell, etc. There's even some registry config options such as increasing the max connections per server (IE) to something greater than 2.
I live in Pullman :-) Spok-vegas is only ~70 miles away.
LOL, I actually hadn't ever heard of a malapropism before... so I hit up google: Malaprop. Good stuff :-)
Caleb
p.s., sed 'Subject s/pineapple/pinnacle/g'
I'm sure you mean "Wittenberg." That's where Luther nailed his 95 theses at the beginning of the reformation... Caleb
This article reminds me of my old usenet signature - and an alt.fan.warlord post (Subject: Makes my teeth itch) that JCEvans made in February 1997.
You'll have to follow the link to see the signature crunching in all its glory...
You've heard of PlayFair, right? (Recently renamed Hymn)
>> I believe they already are! Remember the price hikes the RIAA wanted to impose? (I believe their goal was $2.99 per single (popular singles). If that's not 'embracing' the downloading channel, I don't know what is. Some might say that this is their way of trying to kill this distribution channel.
>> Some might say that this is their way of trying to kill this distribution channel.
Haven't you seen Gladiator? Remember the embrace Lucius gave to his dad, Marcus Aurelius?
>> There may be workarounds, but there will also be a fair number of people who will not want to put forth the effort to deal with such workarounds. It is a matter of convenience.
It only takes one person to create a DRM-less digital copy & post it on the latest P2P network... convenience factor negated.
>> 1. Embraces and promotes the downloading channel (a la iTunes, et al).
I believe they already are! Remember the price hikes the RIAA wanted to impose? (I believe their goal was $2.99 per single (popular singles). If that's not 'embracing' the downloading channel, I don't know what is. (granted, this certainly wouldn't promote the downloading channel when the price per song is significantly higher than purchasing a CD...)
Survey says... people don't like DRM.
2002 Lawsuit againts SunnComm
Good discussion on DRM
The problem with trying to protect information with technology is that it has been shown repeatedly not to work. It only takes one person to crack the protection, and a million people can get a digital copy of the cracked work in days. During DEFCON, a digital security conference held in America last year, a Russian programmer called Dmitry Sklyarov illustrated this by showing how easy it was to circumvent the protection on Adobe's "E-Books". For this service to the public and to Adobe he was arrested and tried by the FBI, under the provision of the DMCA, the American version of the EUCD already part of US law since 1998.
Obviously, the same problem exists with the technology Macrovision & SunnComm are currently proposing. It just takes one person to create a DRM-less digital copy & post it on the latest P2P network...
> Yes,we know, but the author did say it was travelling in a "straight line", not in an earth orbit.
True, but due to gravity, nothing travels in a 'straight line...' (Even if you're looking at the instantaneous velocity, i.e., the tangent line to the arc - that's not a straight line - it's just a point)
So, as the ball is travelling, it is definitely accelerating in a couple ways: It's vertical (downward) speed is increasing and it's direction is changing (both due to gravity).
However, if the author was saying that the ball's horizontal speed was increasing, then obviously we would all disagree with him - without an on-ball propulsion system or a really strong wind (heh), a baseball cannot 'speed up.' Actually, now that I think about it, the moment you hit a baseball, the ball momentarily compresses - could it's decompression (which happens in the milliseconds after it loses contact with the bat) cause it's 'speed' to increase?
For an object to accelerate, it's 'speed' does not need to change... only it's velocity needs to change! Velocity is a vector quantity, so it has both a direction and a rate of motion attached to it.
Therefore, an object can be moving at a constant speed, but as long as it's 'direction' is changing, it is accelerating.
So a satellite that's orbiting the earth at a constant speed, is constantly accelerating since it's direction is constantly changing.
Caleb
Ok, here's the flaw in that logic:
If some company is sending junk faxes for travel deals, and they list an 800 number that isn't their own, how are they going to make money?
Let me make it even clearer: If a spammer starts sending emails with nothing but a good deal at dell.com (for example), how will that make them any money unless it's Dell that is directly (or indirectly) sending the email?
Assuming the author of the ask slashdot question wasn't lying, the junk faxes tell you to call 1-800-328-9795 to buy their timeshares.
The only other possibility is people have been looking at this website and calling other numbers that are listed on it, and not the actual number off the junk fax (1-800-328-9795) - but it sounds like they are complaining about people calling 1-800-328-9795 to me... in which case they need to track down the junk faxer and tell them to stop advertising their company for them! (???)
In light of this worm, I wonder if Microsoft is going to make any changes to the new Windows XP SP2 firewall? (i.e., a self-monitoring 'heurtistic' process that watches for 'exploited-process-like-behavior.')
step 1) put a typo in clients.conf so radius dies altogether
step 2) fix the typo, but leave the IP mangled so your NAS doesn't work
step 3) fix ONE of the typos, leaving the other for good luck
step 4) ???
step 5) profit!
These guys are great... and they're in eastern Washington, too!
Adjust your script so that there must be a 250 millisecond delay between knocks. (and, of course, check the originating IP address so that if someone else attempts to knock, it doesn't interrupt your knock sequence!)
Caleb
A lot of clients in my department regularly ask me if they have a virus when they receive these mail gateway auto-replies. I came up with a good analogy that helps even the most technophobic user understand what's going on:
If I send a letter to George Bush using Saddam Hussein for the return address, the president will not believe that the letter is really from Iraq! Why? (other than Saddam being captured?) The postmark on the envelope will say Pullman, Wa!
Similarly, if the mail server looked at the address that actually sent the virus, it would see something like aol.com or texas-telecom.net. Instead, these mail servers just blindly believe that the virus was really sent from Client-A@wsu.edu. (I insert the client's actual email address here... that helps grab their attention if their mind was already wandering...)