DVD and DiVX look Awful on a big screen as you can see the artifacts on the system. This asks the question how it can be suitable for the large cinema screens.
That's why they aren't talking about DVD/DiVX but rather much higher resolutions. The new Star Wars films were shot entirely on digital and then converted to 35mm for projection, and I didn't hear people complaining about the low resolution.
Indeed, digital projection is likely to be better in most cases due to the fact that the film will not be scratched, etc. (here in Ireland, depending on the cinema you can see some truly awful 35mm presentations, particularly after a film has been out a while.)
Well from the article they are using satellite, and to compare, a *single* HDTV stream is 20 megabits per second, so I don't think this is too unrealistic. The films just have to be queued up for delivery at some stage before projection, and we are talking about a network with a limited number of endpoints (e.g. only cinemas, rather than everyone).
The films are then beamed by satellite from Rain's central computer in Sao Paulo to picture houses across the country. Depending on bandwidth, it can take as little as 20 minutes to send a 90-minute film to a theater.
'sic' Latin for 'thus' - indicates error in quote
on
AMD Back in the Black
·
· Score: 4, Informative
Dictionary.com. It is used when quoting, to indicate that the transcriber has faithfully reproduced a possible mistake in the source. This is because it is considered bad form to modify a quote, at least without indication through square parantheses, which are generally used for explanatory additions due to loss of context, not corrections. And if 'sic' wasn't put in, it would likely look like an error on the transcriber's part. It's certainly not a/. thing;-)
No, actually it should be 4 gibibytes...
on
AMD Back in the Black
·
· Score: 2, Informative
shouldn't that be 4 gigabyte;)
...Seriously, I wasn't paying attention and until I saw this post thought that the SI vs IECprefix thing was the reason for the (sic) in the story. Talk about missing the wood for the trees;-)
"Finally, this is very important: If you propose to continue working in the IT industry, and somebody offers you a look at the source, just say no. Remember - if you learn too much about the internals of Microsoft products, you may find yourself unable to work for anybody except Microsoft. Yike."
"Groklaw has warned that anyone who gains access to the Windows source, whether or not they actually read it, may legally impair their ability to make contributions to open source resembling anything that exists in Windows."
If what I've heard about it is true, reading this source will forever impair your ability to code, period.
I don't know, it is possible that it was uncompressed and the zipping applied later.
More likely it comes from MS in that format?
Article doesn't say it was *stolen* from Linux box
on
Microsoft Source Follow-Up
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
The article doesn't say it was *stolen* from a Linux box, it just says that an analysis of the files suggests that it had come from a Linux box.
For example, the image could have been a CD that was burned on a Linux box, and then misplaced. And given that Mainsoft's work is "Windows on *nix" I'd be surprised if they didn't have a few Linux boxes around;-) As things stand, this says absolutely nothing about Linux security.
"Evil Linux Hackers", perhaps?"
Ironically, there is a Linux connection. Betanews is reporting that an analysis of the leaked Microsoft code indicates that it came from Mainsoft, specifically a Linux machine
belonging to Mainsoft's Director of Technology.
Mainsoft specialise in cross-platform development, enabling devlopers to develop using MS tools for deployment on *nix. Interestingly, for the conspiracy theorists, their previous mentions on/. date from 2000 and center around rumours that they were porting Office and IE to Linux. More news on the leak from Internetnews.com and The Register.
Good point, and note that the vunerability was introduced into the closed source Interbase 4, and persisted through version 6. It was only discovered because Borland released Interbase as open-source:
"Borland released the InterBase program as open-source software in July, meaning that anyone may scrutinize the software, modify it and redistribute it. [...] Programmer Frank Schlottman-Godde from the open-source Firebird project discovered the vulnerability Dec. 18..." (- ZDNet)
Sounds like a pretty strong argument for open source to me.
It was the OS on the Nokia 9110 Communicator. The CPU was a 33Mhz AMD i486 clone, and there was a working port of Freedos (there was talk of Linux and BSD ports, but I don't think they ever happened). I had this phone before the mobile operators in Ireland were really aware of cellular internet access; they used to allow (9.6k GSM) internet access for only 1p/minute (e.g. the same as the fixed line price). With the full keyboard it was a very handy tool for email and telnet, although web-surfing was a bit of a pain. Still faster than my 1200/75 C-64 modem though!
They are denying it, but are investigating their Shared Source Initiative (suggesting that they have a lead, and that there is some truth to the leak - or perhaps it's just the obvious place to look). Apparently the rumoured code uncompresses to around the size of 1 CD, and would only be a small portion of the total 40gb code base. Although all the articles mention the security risks, MS insist it is just an IP issue:
"The rumor regarding the availability of Windows source code is based on the speculation of an individual who saw a small section of un-identified code and thought it looked like Windows code. Microsoft is looking into this as a matter of due diligence," a company spokesman said. "If a small section of Windows source code were to be available, it would be a matter of intellectual property rights rather than security." - from Eweek.
"A small and ever-decreasing percentage of users compile their own binaries, let alone check the result."
I think the government might just have the time to make this sort of check, and as others have said, it only takes one person to notice. Your second point is valid, as is born out by the Debian/micq dispute (also mentioned previously in these comments), but that ironically isn't a point that Jones attempted to make in the article - he seems to be concerned with unpublished back-doors that don't appear in the source.
This story makes no sense whatsoever. From what I can work out, he's saying that although the source may be auditable,
back-doors could be introduced (but not made public) before it is compiled into a distro. Leaving aside the obvious GPL violation:-) he seems to be saying that someone in Red Hat, for example, would be introducing the back-door. But how is this any different than someone in Microsoft doing so with Windows, except that the source was never available in the first place? And why, exactly, would Red Hat be likely to do this while Microsoft does not?
It just doesn't make sense. Indeed, Microsoft only launched it's Shared Source Initiative and Government Security Programme, allowing restricted access to the Windows source, because it acknowledged source auditability to be an advantage of open source.
"What in the world is an USian? Are by chance refering to a United States of America citizen? Sometimes referred to colloquilly as an American or Yankee? If so then use the correct term.
I'm guessing from his use of "computadora" rather than "ordenador" that he is Latin American. Some of the 550 million or so people on the American continent other than US citizens are also 'Americans' and hence like to use a different term for you lot. I'd never really noticed this in Canada, where (in my experience) they happily refer to you as 'Americans' and themselves self-deprecatingly as 'Canucks'; it seems to more of a Latin American thing. 'Yankee,' you must agree, would be horribly insensitive to apply to anyone from the southern United States.
Back on-topic, there's an interesting article on ZDNet on how English tech terms are seeping into Spanish. Oh, and I'm neither 'American' nor 'USian' myself, I'm an EUian, e.g. part of Greater Germany;-)
"...when he was developing the system, he said, widespread copyright infringement was not what he had in mind [...] BitTorrent really started to take off in early 2003 when it was used to distribute a new version of Linux [...] Using BitTorrent for illegal trading, he added, is "patently stupid because it's not anonymous, and it can't be made anonymous because it's fundamentally antithetical to the architecture."
...a *balanced* article, in the mainstream media, about a p2p app, which concentrates on the technology behind the app, and the possibility of non-infringing uses.
Now I've seen it all.
Possibly SCO Unix can prevent DOS attacks...
on
SCOoby Snacks
·
· Score: 1
...what it can't protect against is a company removing their own DNS record in an attempt to garner some free publicity (and sympathy).
Slashdot Mirror
That's why they aren't talking about DVD/DiVX but rather much higher resolutions. The new Star Wars films were shot entirely on digital and then converted to 35mm for projection, and I didn't hear people complaining about the low resolution.
Indeed, digital projection is likely to be better in most cases due to the fact that the film will not be scratched, etc. (here in Ireland, depending on the cinema you can see some truly awful 35mm presentations, particularly after a film has been out a while.)
Well from the article they are using satellite, and to compare, a *single* HDTV stream is 20 megabits per second, so I don't think this is too unrealistic. The films just have to be queued up for delivery at some stage before projection, and we are talking about a network with a limited number of endpoints (e.g. only cinemas, rather than everyone).
The films are then beamed by satellite from Rain's central computer in Sao Paulo to picture houses across the country. Depending on bandwidth, it can take as little as 20 minutes to send a 90-minute film to a theater.
Dictionary.com. It is used when quoting, to indicate that the transcriber has faithfully reproduced a possible mistake in the source. This is because it is considered bad form to modify a quote, at least without indication through square parantheses, which are generally used for explanatory additions due to loss of context, not corrections. And if 'sic' wasn't put in, it would likely look like an error on the transcriber's part. It's certainly not a /. thing ;-)
(-1, Pedantic)
...are provided by noisehole in this post from yeterday's discussion. He reckons Betanews lifted the analysis from his post.
"Finally, this is very important: If you propose to continue working in the IT industry, and somebody offers you a look at the source, just say no. Remember - if you learn too much about the internals of Microsoft products, you may find yourself unable to work for anybody except Microsoft. Yike."
If what I've heard about it is true, reading this source will forever impair your ability to code, period.
More likely it comes from MS in that format?
The article doesn't say it was *stolen* from a Linux box, it just says that an analysis of the files suggests that it had come from a Linux box. For example, the image could have been a CD that was burned on a Linux box, and then misplaced. And given that Mainsoft's work is "Windows on *nix" I'd be surprised if they didn't have a few Linux boxes around ;-) As things stand, this says absolutely nothing about Linux security.
Mainsoft specialise in cross-platform development, enabling devlopers to develop using MS tools for deployment on *nix. Interestingly, for the conspiracy theorists, their previous mentions on /. date from 2000 and center around rumours that they were porting Office and IE to Linux. More news on the leak from Internetnews.com and The Register.
The code is said to be W2k-SP1.
"Borland released the InterBase program as open-source software in July, meaning that anyone may scrutinize the software, modify it and redistribute it. [...] Programmer Frank Schlottman-Godde from the open-source Firebird project discovered the vulnerability Dec. 18..." (- ZDNet)
Sounds like a pretty strong argument for open source to me.
It was the OS on the Nokia 9110 Communicator. The CPU was a 33Mhz AMD i486 clone, and there was a working port of Freedos (there was talk of Linux and BSD ports, but I don't think they ever happened). I had this phone before the mobile operators in Ireland were really aware of cellular internet access; they used to allow (9.6k GSM) internet access for only 1p/minute (e.g. the same as the fixed line price). With the full keyboard it was a very handy tool for email and telnet, although web-surfing was a bit of a pain. Still faster than my 1200/75 C-64 modem though!
Which seems about right.
"The rumor regarding the availability of Windows source code is based on the speculation of an individual who saw a small section of un-identified code and thought it looked like Windows code. Microsoft is looking into this as a matter of due diligence," a company spokesman said. "If a small section of Windows source code were to be available, it would be a matter of intellectual property rights rather than security." - from Eweek.
Also see ZDNet, InternetNews and Google News
Heh. I had included a tag but hadn't used < / > so it got filtered out :-(
Why this is perceived as such a security threat to Microsoft, when it's not for Linux?
...when hackers broke into Microsoft's corporate network. Google is your friend.
...I hear the source code to Linux gets leaked every other day!
"There seems to have been a slight problem with the database. Please try again by pressing the refresh button in your browser."
Refresh, you say? Oh-kay...
I think the government might just have the time to make this sort of check, and as others have said, it only takes one person to notice. Your second point is valid, as is born out by the Debian/micq dispute (also mentioned previously in these comments), but that ironically isn't a point that Jones attempted to make in the article - he seems to be concerned with unpublished back-doors that don't appear in the source.
This story makes no sense whatsoever. From what I can work out, he's saying that although the source may be auditable, back-doors could be introduced (but not made public) before it is compiled into a distro. Leaving aside the obvious GPL violation :-) he seems to be saying that someone in Red Hat, for example, would be introducing the back-door. But how is this any different than someone in Microsoft doing so with Windows, except that the source was never available in the first place? And why, exactly, would Red Hat be likely to do this while Microsoft does not?
It just doesn't make sense. Indeed, Microsoft only launched it's Shared Source Initiative and Government Security Programme, allowing restricted access to the Windows source, because it acknowledged source auditability to be an advantage of open source.
I'm guessing from his use of "computadora" rather than "ordenador" that he is Latin American. Some of the 550 million or so people on the American continent other than US citizens are also 'Americans' and hence like to use a different term for you lot. I'd never really noticed this in Canada, where (in my experience) they happily refer to you as 'Americans' and themselves self-deprecatingly as 'Canucks'; it seems to more of a Latin American thing. 'Yankee,' you must agree, would be horribly insensitive to apply to anyone from the southern United States.
Back on-topic, there's an interesting article on ZDNet on how English tech terms are seeping into Spanish. Oh, and I'm neither 'American' nor 'USian' myself, I'm an EUian, e.g. part of Greater Germany ;-)
Now I've seen it all.
...what it can't protect against is a company removing their own DNS record in an attempt to garner some free publicity (and sympathy).