"We discovered a system log in which the problem was documented,"
Those guys are running a very expensive experiment, are logging it and they have no idea what and where they are logging??
Making analog copies is no problem. These copies "wear" each time they are copied, so a judge will believe that this will stop people from copying them time over time.
However, digital copies do not wear, and can be copied perfectly (sale-quality) by even the d**b*st m*r*n on a massive scale, requiring nothing but some blank media. This is what scares the big record/moviecompany folks.
Simple solution to this digital copying problem: spread an original noone wants to see/copy:)
Better solution: Convince the judge that there is absolutely no difference in (human) visual quality between some analog copying device and a digital copying device, and thus try to make him stop the spreading of scart-cables, or whatever one uses as the critical link to copy a tape to a tape. That must be an eye opener...
Other solution, more qualified to serve as help in the current situation: (Enforce the) add(ing of) a visible (or watermarked) logo to the digital recording, so the copy will never be like the original for 100% - This will take away the argument that it is a tool created for pirating stuff and give more credit to the personal use thing.
I had a recent job interview with a big electronics company, which name I shall not name (even though they make nice razors), which started off with an interview with HR.
Instead of a chance to show my technical knowledge, HR simply started firing off the usual nonsense and rejected me on non-technical grounds, before I even had a chance to get interviewed by a possible future colleague:
Competence should not be sought by the technical incompetent.
...I bought one by Kodak. Why ? To this date, I still wonder. It was one of those DC-3200 camera's(opinion definitely not mine), which provided 1 megapixel resolution with the camerasize of a polaroid. After one first try, I brought it back when I found out that the batteries (AA) would only last 30 minutes. Since then, I regarded Kodak in the digital camera business for what it proved to be to me: crap.
My second camera was a Fuji A-101, which was a lot smaller, more power-friendly, and gave me a lot of pleasure for my money. I stayed with Fuji ever since.
Kodak indeed can't hack it in the digital age. I would say to them: put up with it, or.....
Ok,it's not a game anymore...
on
Brine on Mars?
·
· Score: 3, Funny
I want whoever had hidden my shiny roundmarbles on Mars to come and tell me the truth. I lost these things since the first grade, sniff, how am I supposed to get them back from there?
... or it will be the demise of the newer technologies they are promising:
People now most often have bluetooth in their phones, PDA's etc. When the major industries start dropping it, and start telling everyone they are dropping it, (some) people tend to think the technology is useless. It will never grow to the momentum it now seems to grow to now, even though it's a bit late.
This in turn will make customers less happy to believe a new (short-range inter-tool) communication will help them solve problems.
I think once bluetooth is accepted and used widely, the step over to wireless-USB or any other standard is much easier. The normal customer doesn't mind what does the trick, as long as the trick is done.
I can still access it, even though I'm from Holland, but I feel I still have the right to get the Lindows product from Lindows.com as I please. This view of the "Internet", and the websites that it houses is quite stalinistic in my humble opinion.
I guess if we don't talk about it and let the OS community silently do it's work, the effect described will indeed present itself, but it will by then already be to far grown to stop it:)
So I guess we should ignore it, for posterity's sake:)
Google avoids that problem by using referrals...
on
Google's Bigger Index
·
· Score: 1
It is referrals to a page that give a page credit, and describe the actual content a page is about. That is what google is trying to do at least.
Is it not true that when you hear things from 3 different people, you believe the thing more opposed to hearing it from one person ? It's this "hearsay" that makes google so powerful, yet suspectible to mischief like the one put forward by many spam-sites that lay around a network of referrals.
A possible improvement could perhaps be the use of a system that proves the referring website is unique in nature, and is not copied all over the place (call it a "jury":). But doing this would mean some central authority (a "judge") collecting some ID on websites or the like. Better than this would be a formula that achieves this goal without such authentication, so everyone can go about their ways just as usual, and no longer have to pay attention to these shouters in the crowd ("evidence").
... so who cares what a developer writes in his code as long as he doesn't make it a static:)
As written before, a lot of sourcecode has comments in it that could be viewed as offending by some, including Linux kernel code.
The only thing it conveys is the way a developer thinks about it's users (ie. the "f**** stupid user" remarks, if any), which in turn can tell you a bit in which light the program was written.
...that presented itself in the AT&T software is told at the end of the chapter, repeated here for your convenience: "As it happened, the problem itself - the problem per se - took this form. A piece of telco software had been written in C language, a standard language of the telco field. Within the C software was a long "do... while" construct. The "do... while" construct contained a "switch" statement. The "switch" statement contained an "if" clause. The "if" clause contained a "break." The "break" was supposed to "break" the "if" clause. Instead, the "break" broke the "switch" statement."
as described in the excellent work by Bruce Sterling, "The Hacker Crackdown" (which everyone probably read): the blackout of the AT&T telephone switching system in 1990 also occured because of a software error.
What happened then (accusing of hackers as being responsible) is happening again: people pointing to external factors as being the cause for the culprit.
When do people start to learn from mistakes made and realize that instead of accusing people, they can better spend time in software audits?
... where people can submit "(feature|law)" requests to existing "(features|laws)" and can comment on certain "(bugs|law inconsistenties)" in the
"(sourcecode|democracy)" ?
Sounds reasonable. But how does the "(project administrator|government)" decide which requests will be implemented ? Do they use a "(priority|voting process)" to decide which requests are more important ?
Would there be a versioning system like CVS for the "(sourcecode|democracy)" ? And can I download the "(sourcecode|democracy)" version X.Y somehow ? How is a new "(software|democratic)" "(baseline|constitution)" decided upon ? Do all "(users|civilians)" approve it, or are only the "(project members|ministers)" allowed to vote ?
How will it be "(packaged|written)" then ? Can I assume I can download a "(tarball|lawbook)" with the current release in it ?
Somehow it sounds OK, needs some touching up perhaps, but the idea is nice:)
asbestos!
It is the miracle product of our time:
- It can't burn up, so you can use it to protect your house from fire. Think of it: no more fire in your home!
- It can be used to protect innocent firemen while extuingishing other nasty fires.
- You can process it in baby-clothing, to protect him/her from any harm !
- You can put it on the stove, so your food doesn't burn up!
Asbestos makes your life better !
...
Now that we know it's poisonous, that gives me a few questions about this product also: how do we know it doesn't harm us directly?
And er... does it have anything to do with red phosphourus ?
The point I was trying to make was that these thoughts probably existed back then. Feelings of doubt with the introduction of certain new technologies.
Nowadays, we see these fears (or whatever fears those people had back then) are not so far from the truth and we learned to live with those fears, or ignored them:
Pollution by industrialization/smog problems, 24 hour economy because we are not forced to sleep when it is dark (and there are no more candles to burn up..), television that shows stupid shows to which the majority of the people watch to relieve their daily lifes...
Just like the examples given, nano-technology has it's drawbacks, which in the future will probably be accepted as negative consequences of a technology that brings good things too, whatever those consequences may be.
Slashdot Mirror
"We discovered a system log in which the problem was documented,"
Those guys are running a very expensive experiment, are logging it and they have no idea what and where they are logging??
Making analog copies is no problem. These copies "wear" each time they are copied, so a judge will believe that this will stop people from copying them time over time. :)
However, digital copies do not wear, and can be copied perfectly (sale-quality) by even the d**b*st m*r*n on a massive scale, requiring nothing but some blank media. This is what scares the big record/moviecompany folks. Simple solution to this digital copying problem: spread an original noone wants to see/copy
Better solution: Convince the judge that there is absolutely no difference in (human) visual quality between some analog copying device and a digital copying device, and thus try to make him stop the spreading of scart-cables, or whatever one uses as the critical link to copy a tape to a tape. That must be an eye opener...
Other solution, more qualified to serve as help in the current situation: (Enforce the) add(ing of) a visible (or watermarked) logo to the digital recording, so the copy will never be like the original for 100% - This will take away the argument that it is a tool created for pirating stuff and give more credit to the personal use thing.
My Fuji A101 was bought right after I ditched my DC3200 (within a week), and it was definitely not a power-hog.
I had a recent job interview with a big electronics company, which name I shall not name (even though they make nice razors), which started off with an interview with HR.
Instead of a chance to show my technical knowledge, HR simply started firing off the usual nonsense and rejected me on non-technical grounds, before I even had a chance to get interviewed by a possible future colleague:
Competence should not be sought by the technical incompetent.
...we have a 50Hz field surrounding us, not a 60Hz on which the research is based.
...I bought one by Kodak. Why ? To this date, I still wonder.
.....
It was one of those DC-3200 camera's(opinion definitely not mine), which provided 1 megapixel resolution with the camerasize of a polaroid.
After one first try, I brought it back when I found out that the batteries (AA) would only last 30 minutes. Since then, I regarded Kodak in the digital camera business for what it proved to be to me: crap.
My second camera was a Fuji A-101, which was a lot smaller, more power-friendly, and gave me a lot of pleasure for my money. I stayed with Fuji ever since.
Kodak indeed can't hack it in the digital age. I would say to them: put up with it, or
I want whoever had hidden my shiny roundmarbles on Mars to come and tell me the truth.
I lost these things since the first grade, sniff, how am I supposed to get them back from there?
... or it will be the demise of the newer technologies they are promising:
People now most often have bluetooth in their phones, PDA's etc. When the major industries start dropping it, and start telling everyone they are dropping it, (some) people tend to think the technology is useless. It will never grow to the momentum it now seems to grow to now, even though it's a bit late.
This in turn will make customers less happy to believe a new (short-range inter-tool) communication will help them solve problems.
I think once bluetooth is accepted and used widely, the step over to wireless-USB or any other standard is much easier.
The normal customer doesn't mind what does the trick, as long as the trick is done.
This clearly has to be the bottle of finegrain Wodka I lost just the other day !
Now I am facing a dillemma. Should I buy Lindows as support from Lindows.com, or would I play M$ in it's cold hands by doing just that ?
In dutch: "Beveelt Lindows.com om binnen acht dagen na betekening van dit vonnis de toegang voor de website(s) van Lindows.com waarop zij programmatuur aanbiedt onder de naam "Lindows", "Lindows.com", en "LindowsOS", inclusief maar niet beperkt tot de website op URL http://www.lindows.com, ontoegankelijk te maken voor bezoekers uit Belgie, Nederland en Luxemburg." , which roughly translates to:
"(The court) Orders a verdict under which Lindows.com is to block access to the website of Lindows.com where she offers software under the name of "Lindows", including but not limited to the website at URL http://www.lindows.com, to all vistors from Belgium, The Netherlands and Luxembourg."
I can still access it, even though I'm from Holland, but I feel I still have the right to get the Lindows product from Lindows.com as I please.
This view of the "Internet", and the websites that it houses is quite stalinistic in my humble opinion.
I guess if we don't talk about it and let the OS community silently do it's work, the effect described will indeed present itself, but it will by then already be to far grown to stop it :) :)
So I guess we should ignore it, for posterity's sake
It is referrals to a page that give a page credit, and describe the actual content a page is about. That is what google is trying to do at least.
:). But doing this would mean some central authority (a "judge") collecting some ID on websites or the like.
Is it not true that when you hear things from 3 different people, you believe the thing more opposed to hearing it from one person ? It's this "hearsay" that makes google so powerful, yet suspectible to mischief like the one put forward by many spam-sites that lay around a network of referrals.
A possible improvement could perhaps be the use of a system that proves the referring website is unique in nature, and is not copied all over the place (call it a "jury"
Better than this would be a formula that achieves this goal without such authentication, so everyone can go about their ways just as usual, and no longer have to pay attention to these shouters in the crowd ("evidence").
It's the Backdoor-CAY virus, as named by McAfee. See this article for a description by the person who originally found the virus. :)
Sending the file to McAfee really helped
... so who cares what a developer writes in his code as long as he doesn't make it a static :)
As written before, a lot of sourcecode has comments in it that could be viewed as offending by some, including Linux kernel code.
The only thing it conveys is the way a developer thinks about it's users (ie. the "f**** stupid user" remarks, if any), which in turn can tell you a bit in which light the program was written.
Probably will cease trading if it's dropping to steeply...
... look at slashdot - it's being... slashdotted ...
Or must we say in this case: backslashdotted ?
...that presented itself in the AT&T software is told at the end of the chapter, repeated here for your convenience:
"As it happened, the problem itself - the problem per se - took this form. A piece of telco software had been written in C language, a standard language of the telco field. Within the C software was a long "do... while" construct. The "do... while" construct contained a "switch" statement. The "switch" statement contained an "if" clause. The "if" clause contained a "break." The "break" was supposed to "break" the "if" clause. Instead, the "break" broke the "switch" statement."
as described in the excellent work by Bruce Sterling, "The Hacker Crackdown" (which everyone probably read): the blackout of the AT&T telephone switching system in 1990 also occured because of a software error.
What happened then (accusing of hackers as being responsible) is happening again: people pointing to external factors as being the cause for the culprit.
When do people start to learn from mistakes made and realize that instead of accusing people, they can better spend time in software audits?
... where people can submit "(feature|law)" requests to existing "(features|laws)" and can comment on certain "(bugs|law inconsistenties)" in the "(sourcecode|democracy)" ?
:)
Sounds reasonable. But how does the "(project administrator|government)" decide which requests will be implemented ? Do they use a "(priority|voting process)" to decide which requests are more important ?
Would there be a versioning system like CVS for the "(sourcecode|democracy)" ? And can I download the "(sourcecode|democracy)" version X.Y somehow ? How is a new "(software|democratic)" "(baseline|constitution)" decided upon ? Do all "(users|civilians)" approve it, or are only the "(project members|ministers)" allowed to vote ?
How will it be "(packaged|written)" then ? Can I assume I can download a "(tarball|lawbook)" with the current release in it ?
Somehow it sounds OK, needs some touching up perhaps, but the idea is nice
asbestos!
It is the miracle product of our time:
- It can't burn up, so you can use it to protect your house from fire. Think of it: no more fire in your home!
- It can be used to protect innocent firemen while extuingishing other nasty fires.
- You can process it in baby-clothing, to protect him/her from any harm !
- You can put it on the stove, so your food doesn't burn up!
Asbestos makes your life better !
...
Now that we know it's poisonous, that gives me a few questions about this product also: how do we know it doesn't harm us directly?
And er... does it have anything to do with red phosphourus ?
bringing Prey in the picture here to demonstrate this technology is rather non-scientific ?
I browsed the images and found these raw images of the anomoly:
Filter 2 19nm
Filter 2 20nm
Probably just a dead animal that one time crowded the face of Mars.
It's dead now, so nothing to worry about:
There is no life on Mars.
Now move along, nothing to see here.
Ofcourse this is all made-up...
The point I was trying to make was that these thoughts probably existed back then. Feelings of doubt with the introduction of certain new technologies.
Nowadays, we see these fears (or whatever fears those people had back then) are not so far from the truth and we learned to live with those fears, or ignored them:
Pollution by industrialization/smog problems, 24 hour economy because we are not forced to sleep when it is dark (and there are no more candles to burn up..), television that shows stupid shows to which the majority of the people watch to relieve their daily lifes...
Just like the examples given, nano-technology has it's drawbacks, which in the future will probably be accepted as negative consequences of a technology that brings good things too, whatever those consequences may be.