As pointed out in this comment, UGO is not really as broke as it likes to have its affiliates believe. Or maybe it's the other way round: its "management team is not as highly adept at both managing cash and generating revenue" as it likes to have its prospective investors believe. Sorry, can't have it both ways. This is spelled FRAUD.
If you are an affiliate and want your money (all of your money...), you may want to have a closer look at this comment and remind the officers of the company that their conduct may expose them to personal liability.
Maybe what he meant was "US laws broken on US soil, but suspect fled to another country". Sure, if you smoke pot in New York, and then move to Amsterdam, they'd have grounds to arrest you/have you extradited.
> however you have no way to represent non-compression resistant files.
The challenge specifies that you can choose your compressor after you had a peek at the datafile. If it turns out to be compressible enough by a known algorithm, just ship that compressor. If it isn't, use your meta-compressor.
However, I have a gut feeling that the uncompressible files are too numerous for this meta-compressor to work: if 99% of all possible files are uncompressible, then the index number of the file would not be that much smaller than the file itself, and you couldn't fit the meta-compressor's code (which would be rather complex...) in the small space saving.
As others have pointed out, a better alternative would be to simply "play the odds": make an algorithm which only works in 10% of the cases. If the file can't be compressed, resubmit an entry until you get one that works. On average you would have spent $1000, and won $5000!
> Why's this post moderated higher and placed above an earlier post that provided an actual link??
Because the earlyer post was posted by an AC, so it started at score 0, rather than 1. Both were moderated up as informative, and thus ended up with scores 1 and 2.
> How about bi-directional printers. Do any of you remember the heartache when your first inkjet didn't work correctly because you only had a uni-directional printer port?
Huh? Why would the inkjet need to send data back to the computer? AFAIK, bidirectionality (in the case of printers) is only used for sending back the name of the printer. Cute, but not vital for operation.
Now, for other parallell port devices, such as scanners or Zip drives, you would have a point.
> How about 5 1/4 floppy drives? Remember not being able to read 360kb formated floppies in certain high density drives?
This actually had more to do with the order in which the disk was written to in the various drives, rather than with the drives themselves. Alternatively writing to a disk in a HD drive and a DD drive was a definite no-no, and would make the disk unreadable in the DD drive. The reason for this was that the R/W heads for the DD drives where twice as large. When writing using the DD drive, you would get rather wide tracks. When then writing using the HD drive, the new data would be superimposed as a narrower track, whereas the sides still had the old data. No problem reading such a disk in a HD drive: indeed, due to its narrower head, it would only pick up the new data. The DD drive, however, picked up a mix of both signals and hence could not make any sense of the data.
The easy solution: when transporting data between two computers where one had a HD drive and the other a DD drive, keep two disks: one for transfers from the HD drive to DD, and one for the tranfering in the other direction. Both had to be formatted to DD of course.
Sorry, it's been years since I haven't been there. Maybe the Toronto's "council of tallest buildings" changed the definition of "building" recently?;-)
> The CN Tower is the tallest building in the world as recognised by the Guinness book of world records.
It's the tallest "free standing structure". At least that's how they advertise it in their own brochures. It doesn't count as a "building" because it doesn't have any inhabitable floors. Or do join the spires vs no spires discussion, the CN tower is all spire...
> I'm not quite sure why this is, but I can speculate that it has something to do with competing with DSL.
You think this is bad? Here in Luxembourg, the P&T (national telecom operator) doesn't roll out DSL in certain places for fear of competing with its (much more expensive) leased line offering. Kirchberg, which already has fiber-to-the-curb, never will get DSL, for fear that all the banks located there will drop their leased-line subscription and get DSL instead.
> If someone strike a clause then they are going to instantly suspect trouble!
Be smarter. Type up the paper agreement in the same font, or scan it, and leave the offending clause out. This is not falsification, as this is something you sign, not sth which bears somebody else's signature. Chances are, they won't notice.
Just strike the offeding clause out when you sign the agreement, and you're set. They very probably won't notice it and even if they did, they wouldn't turn away good business.
Re:This is a Good Thing
on
NSA Inside?
·
· Score: 2
> Well, Mandatory Access Controls are a good thing for security, but they don't do anything vs. the NSA. MAC just means that you don't accidentally forget to secure a file, and that you don't accidentally lessen security on a file without knowing it.
Nope, MAC also makes deliberate spying more difficult. Nobody can downgrade the security clearance of a document, not even its owner/creator. Thus, even if a spy somehow got access to a MAC protected file on the computer, he would have a very hard time smuggling it out of the system. MAC would make sure that he can't just e-mail it to his hotmail account, or ftp it to some non-secure site. In a properly set up MAC facility, even printers have MAC ratings associated with them: you can't print top secret documents to non-top secret rated printers. And only printers in physically secured rooms would get the appropriate rating.
A craftful spy could still get data out (copying it by hand on a sheet of paper, photographing the screen), but it would be a much bigger hassle, and it greatly augments the probability of getting caught.
> You can't mod up your own posts, even if you post anonymously
If you do that, do not just check the Post anonymously box. Rather log out by following the logout link at the top of your User-info page (or simply remove the slashdot cookie using a text-editor).
Or alternatively, use hotmail to get a second (and third, and fourth,...) account.
Also, if you pull this off, be very careful about meta-moderation (you lose one karma point each time somebody labels your moderation as "unfair").
Only problem: people motivated enough to get rid of the ads can do so for free by using a filtering proxy, some name server or/etc/hosts tweaks, firewalling rules or whatever.
And those not motivated enough, well, they do not care enough to fill out the forms, let alone pay the subscription price.
Look at the date. As far as I know, this component even has been removed since then (the German government threatened to forbid sale of Windows 2000 if that component stayed in...)
Seems like the quota-hunters moderate everything down which is remotely critical of their cult... Parent is on-topic: this is the very ISP the article talks about, and was a direct response to the question asked in parent! The article was about a header which could have been used for snooping, and the "cult" would gladly engage in these kinds of activities.
> They can't prevent you from using their name except if you try to use that name on another product.
Nope, they can also prevent you from using their name as (part of) your web domain name. As evidenced by the very numerous suits revolving around this issue (etoys vs etoy, etc.)
The problem with these laws is that they won't be used to go after the consumers, but rather after the shops. Shops will prefer to loose the small profit they make selling chipped consoles, rather than risk expensive lawsuits. If even one consumer will use his chipped console to play pirated games, some crafty corporate lawyer could twist that into "the primary purpose of the chips is to pirate" and sue the shop into oblivion.
So, you'll basically end up with a situation where it will stay legal to use modchips, but effectively illegal to sell, make, import whatever them. At that point, it makes no difference for the consumer that technically they are still legal to use, because he won't be able to get them any longer from any reasonable source.
> One thing I've heard is that CRTs give the appearance of an image where it really isn't (either in front or behind),
Looks like behind (just try to focus on a piece of dust on your screen and compare to where the image is: looks like some 3mm behind).
Solution: keep your screen dust free, so your eyes won't find any point of reference on the glass surface, and the only thing it notices is the image. If the image is at the "wrong" place, make sure the eye does't know where the right place should be...
Slashdot Mirror
If you are an affiliate and want your money (all of your money...), you may want to have a closer look at this comment and remind the officers of the company that their conduct may expose them to personal liability.
Maybe what he meant was "US laws broken on US soil, but suspect fled to another country". Sure, if you smoke pot in New York, and then move to Amsterdam, they'd have grounds to arrest you/have you extradited.
The challenge specifies that you can choose your compressor after you had a peek at the datafile. If it turns out to be compressible enough by a known algorithm, just ship that compressor. If it isn't, use your meta-compressor.
However, I have a gut feeling that the uncompressible files are too numerous for this meta-compressor to work: if 99% of all possible files are uncompressible, then the index number of the file would not be that much smaller than the file itself, and you couldn't fit the meta-compressor's code (which would be rather complex...) in the small space saving.
As others have pointed out, a better alternative would be to simply "play the odds": make an algorithm which only works in 10% of the cases. If the file can't be compressed, resubmit an entry until you get one that works. On average you would have spent $1000, and won $5000!
I'd rather take some potshots at some sheeple instead. Sheeple don't value their own rights, so why should I value theirs?
Because the earlyer post was posted by an AC, so it started at score 0, rather than 1. Both were moderated up as informative, and thus ended up with scores 1 and 2.
Huh? Why would the inkjet need to send data back to the computer? AFAIK, bidirectionality (in the case of printers) is only used for sending back the name of the printer. Cute, but not vital for operation.
Now, for other parallell port devices, such as scanners or Zip drives, you would have a point.
> How about 5 1/4 floppy drives? Remember not being able to read 360kb formated floppies in certain high density drives?
This actually had more to do with the order in which the disk was written to in the various drives, rather than with the drives themselves. Alternatively writing to a disk in a HD drive and a DD drive was a definite no-no, and would make the disk unreadable in the DD drive. The reason for this was that the R/W heads for the DD drives where twice as large. When writing using the DD drive, you would get rather wide tracks. When then writing using the HD drive, the new data would be superimposed as a narrower track, whereas the sides still had the old data. No problem reading such a disk in a HD drive: indeed, due to its narrower head, it would only pick up the new data. The DD drive, however, picked up a mix of both signals and hence could not make any sense of the data.
The easy solution: when transporting data between two computers where one had a HD drive and the other a DD drive, keep two disks: one for transfers from the HD drive to DD, and one for the tranfering in the other direction. Both had to be formatted to DD of course.
Not if your beer has been made using patented yeasts!
And then sue them for copyright infringment if they complain!
> So basically, this lets someone malicious tell your computer what to do.
Especially since Micro$oft's crypto certificate has been leaked. So you cannot even be sure that the patch is from the real Micro$oft either!
Sorry, it's been years since I haven't been there. Maybe the Toronto's "council of tallest buildings" changed the definition of "building" recently? ;-)
And you also buy Playboy for the articles, right?
Referenced to sea-level? You must be joking! In that case, would a tent erected by a mountain climber near the summit of Mt Everest count?
HAAT seems to be a much more sensible measure to me (although somewhat difficult to assess in places such as San Francisco...)
It's the tallest "free standing structure". At least that's how they advertise it in their own brochures. It doesn't count as a "building" because it doesn't have any inhabitable floors. Or do join the spires vs no spires discussion, the CN tower is all spire...
As far as Linux is concerned, it stands for Executable and Linking Format.
You think this is bad? Here in Luxembourg, the P&T (national telecom operator) doesn't roll out DSL in certain places for fear of competing with its (much more expensive) leased line offering. Kirchberg, which already has fiber-to-the-curb, never will get DSL, for fear that all the banks located there will drop their leased-line subscription and get DSL instead.
Be smarter. Type up the paper agreement in the same font, or scan it, and leave the offending clause out. This is not falsification, as this is something you sign, not sth which bears somebody else's signature. Chances are, they won't notice.
Just strike the offeding clause out when you sign the agreement, and you're set. They very probably won't notice it and even if they did, they wouldn't turn away good business.
Nope, MAC also makes deliberate spying more difficult. Nobody can downgrade the security clearance of a document, not even its owner/creator. Thus, even if a spy somehow got access to a MAC protected file on the computer, he would have a very hard time smuggling it out of the system. MAC would make sure that he can't just e-mail it to his hotmail account, or ftp it to some non-secure site. In a properly set up MAC facility, even printers have MAC ratings associated with them: you can't print top secret documents to non-top secret rated printers. And only printers in physically secured rooms would get the appropriate rating.
A craftful spy could still get data out (copying it by hand on a sheet of paper, photographing the screen), but it would be a much bigger hassle, and it greatly augments the probability of getting caught.
If you do that, do not just check the Post anonymously box. Rather log out by following the logout link at the top of your User-info page (or simply remove the slashdot cookie using a text-editor).
Or alternatively, use hotmail to get a second (and third, and fourth, ...) account.
Also, if you pull this off, be very careful about meta-moderation (you lose one karma point each time somebody labels your moderation as "unfair").
And those not motivated enough, well, they do not care enough to fill out the forms, let alone pay the subscription price.
Look at the date. As far as I know, this component even has been removed since then (the German government threatened to forbid sale of Windows 2000 if that component stayed in...)
Seems like the quota-hunters moderate everything down which is remotely critical of their cult... Parent is on-topic: this is the very ISP the article talks about, and was a direct response to the question asked in parent! The article was about a header which could have been used for snooping, and the "cult" would gladly engage in these kinds of activities.
Nope, they can also prevent you from using their name as (part of) your web domain name. As evidenced by the very numerous suits revolving around this issue (etoys vs etoy, etc.)
So, you'll basically end up with a situation where it will stay legal to use modchips, but effectively illegal to sell, make, import whatever them. At that point, it makes no difference for the consumer that technically they are still legal to use, because he won't be able to get them any longer from any reasonable source.
Looks like behind (just try to focus on a piece of dust on your screen and compare to where the image is: looks like some 3mm behind).
Solution: keep your screen dust free, so your eyes won't find any point of reference on the glass surface, and the only thing it notices is the image. If the image is at the "wrong" place, make sure the eye does't know where the right place should be...