So after a terrorist commandeers a 747 and plows it into a high-density residential development we will be able to find a charred finger and know EXACTLY who it was that committed this horrific act.
Okay, a silly example but how far from the truth is it? I just don't think these measures do much at all to prevent acts of terror.
I went to Ameritrade and did some research on SCO. At the end of last year they had $64M in cash which is not very much money. They are a very small company (comparatively) in the IT world with not even 100M a year in revenues. They have three insiders that sold stock or excercised stock options to the tune of almost $300M in Feb/Mar of this year. I don't understand what would keep them afloat for more than a year. They have negative earnings-per-share and they have a estimated share price of $5 at the end of this year (currently at $9.50). SCO would be better served by having someone at the helm that had a real interest in technology. McBride is inarticulate, mean-spirited, and an opportunist. I wonder if SCO can stay in business long enough to see their various law suits to a conclusion.
I think a lot of folks equate monetary fines as the equivalent of punishment. I supposed that the EU and other such bodies might also think that monetary fines are punishing. However, as a psychologist, I know that punishment, by definition, reduces or eliminates the target behavior. I don't think that Microsoft even finds these fines as particular noxious. It's just a cost of doing business. So, if these legal bodies that go after Microsoft want to do something *punishing* so that they can reduce/eliminate certain behaviors, then they have to do something like putting executives in jail. Bill Gates might not care much about a $600M check, but laying down in a cell bed at night and wondering if his 300lb cell-mate is going to get romantic.....
This will get hacked very quickly by folks who would like access to high-quality downloads and the fast download speeds that commercial sites afford. I am assuming that Microsoft and the record labels know this but figure it will be a small problem? It is a shame that my first response to this is not "how cool is this?" but, rather, "this will be hacked." But, since all of this is in response to piracy, I am surprised that these folks will hang their hats on a software solution. Oh, well.
I wonder if Google would have offered this as well as rather quickly adding the new features to it's search service if it were not for MicroSoft's impending entry into the search engine market.
However, the email service sounds great. 1GB of space is incredible but I think I would like the ability to do a fast search through all of my stored email even more. Even though the article notes that 1GB per user will cost Google only about $2 to maintain (they didn't say if that was a annual cost or what), if they did get 100M users that would be pretty expensive! It makes you wonder if they don't have a tiered service in mind down the road. Of course, this will be "advertiser supported" so who knows how invasive that will or will not be when using their mail services.
Still, this all smacks of either "window dressing" for Wall Street, "war paint" for Microsoft, or, perhaps, both? Either way the users will be winners for a least a little while.
I can think of many good uses for a product like this but I wasn't able to find price information or some technical info such as the expected range of the access point when carried in a backpack, etc. I can't tell if they are marketing this or just doing a computer-Zen circle jerk. Still, it's a cool idea.
Microsoft probably can come up with the worlds greatest search engine. Then, they will do what they always do after they decimate and then dominate a market - ignore it. Whatever the state-of-art is for search engines will be frozen in time once it belongs to Microsoft. You can pay them now or pay them later....
Happy Trails!
Erick
How do you "accidently" buy RealOne?
on
Real's Reality
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
First: I don't like Real.com's product at all. I have had nightmarish experiences with it and would never, ever considering using it.
But, how are people accidently buying the premium version? How do you accidentally type in your credit card information? I don't know about the rest of the world, but when I type in my credit card info I am *not* surprised when I get billed.
Microsoft will eventually integrate a search engine into Windows just as they are going to integrate an anti-virus product and have already integrated MediaPlayer. It's just a matter of when. If Google really was offered $10 billion by Microsoft and turned it down, then they were stupid.
My boys are 10 and 13 now, but back when they were more like four and five, family and friends thought it was fun to buy them toys that created noise volumes that made a landing 747 seem quiet in comparison. I took the toys apart and would find the right value resistor that would top off the speaker volume at some level that was at least just under a dull roar. Not the most ingenious of hacks, but very effective.
"Gorog said he resists comparisons with other subscription services because of incongruities in the way subscriber numbers are reported. But he expects the business will mature as users realize it's cheaper to pay a flat fee for access to 500,000 tracks than to pay $1 a song."
It's important to note that you still have to pay if you want to burn a song to a CD or otherwise use it outside of your computer. You do, however, get to use the song on up to three computers. Just a point of clarification because the article might lead one to believe that for a subscription fee you get unlimited downloads to use as you please and you really don't.
Remember when some folks couldn't take Furby toys to work because of their ability to record or whatever and that made them a security risk? I wonder if this phone that can scan documents might not prompt the same sort of thing in some places. Hey, it could happen....
I needed to make a deposit at my bank the other day and, honest-to-God, there were four cars at drive up window #1, five cars at window #2, someone at the ATM and someone waiting for the ATM. So, I parked *in front of the main entrance* walked all of ten feet or so and went inside to find FOUR bank tellers with not a single customer inside the bank. Amazing! I might be on to something here...
Here is anti-skimming technology I came across while googling my way through this topic:
...The task force will be looking at a number of ways to combat skimming, including the design of ATMs and magnetic stripe technology.
Evans says a technology called Jitter is one way to beat skimming.
"A skimming device needs a nice, smooth card reader. Jitter varies the speed and reverses the direction of the card intermittently and in a random fashion when the card is entered."
Jitter is being deployed mainly on newer, motorized card readers...
Pretty good idea. I know that I will be very vigilant from now on when using an ATM.
From the article: "The group discounted the recent wave of worms, viruses and other attacks that have affected Windows systems worldwide. It confined the study to overt digital attacks by hackers."
This is not the best way to conduct research. When I was doing research at NIH we would say of this sort of thing, "After discarding all data to the contrary, the hypothesis was proven."
While this research may show that Linux servers are over-represented in overt acts of hacking, this does not statistically make the Linux OS the least secure. Attacking a particular system simply makes it popular for attack. In order to characterize Linux, or any other OS, as the least secure, there would need to be evidence that an equal amount of other OS's were unsuccessfully attacked or the success rate was lower. Other variables that would required controls would be the hacker, level of sophistication of attack, etc. etc.
To say that "...while Linux servers were the most vulnerable,,," only means that they may have been the most targeted. I am not saying that the conclusions of this research are incorrect, I am saying that from what I have read, they cannot come to those conclusions.
Maybe this isn't so surprising. Virus writers are becoming, as the gangsters in movies like to say, "a business man." Capitalism will grow in any sort of soil. I'm not supporting this by any means, but, sociologically, it sure makes a point about how any "industry" or endeavor will eventually start to emulate more legitimate enterprises.
Kodak, while acting like a bit of a lumbering giant, has the resources to tranform itself into a digital imaging giant. I think it has taken a "wakeup" call for the mangement team to understand that it is time for wholesale change. I see them moving into digital printing in a very big way online and via kiosks in stores, malls, etc. I also think that they will find a niche in low end digital cameras, probably of the single-use variety. There is so much that they can do with their existing infrastructure and I am confident that they will succeed. Just my two cents worth!
Perhaps there needs to be a cohesive international set of laws for such matters. Clearly these issues cross many borders (The RIAA and it's overseas equivalents, etc.). Software companies, music industries, artists, etc. all sell their wares into a global economy. Just an idea....
Watch the demo video, the first one on the video page. The technology behind this robot is amazing! Each movement of the robot, for example, returns 50% of the energy used back to the batteries. This means the robot can run it's seven motors for 20 hours. While the robot itself is pretty wild - it can do some pretty wild things and not fall over - the real benefit, I think, is in how these innovations can be translated into more serious robotic applications. If he can do all of this with two chips and 12K of assembler code, imagine the possibilities for something that might cost a bit more than this robot's $99.
From an interview that can be found on CNN's site:
Rick Lockridge: Illness and aging cause changes to your eyes, but the iris never changes from the eighth month of gestation until death. That's why EyeTicket and others feel iris-recognition technology is superior to thumbprint recognition and other competitors.
I've had to look for a job three times in the last five years (the computer industry is fickle around here). Each time I have checked
the email that monster.com faithfully deposits daily into my inbox. I haven't found a job using monster. Each of my jobs, including the one I am interviewing for on Monday, came from people who already worked at the "target" company. Networking is still the best way to get a job for most people. At least, that has been my experience. I am not surprised at the statistics for monster.com's placement rate.
Despite such technical hurdles, space-based arms are legal. The Outer Space Treaty of 1967 only bans nuclear weapons and other weapons of mass destruction from orbit.
As a novelty this would be interesting and I could see how it could be used to enhance an email. For example, if I am sending my wife an email I can attach the scent of roses to make it a bit more romantic. Or, if I am sending an invitation for dinner I suppose I could attach the scent of some sort of food such as bread baking? Like most technologies I suppose it will get better over time.
Yellow Tail is a very mellow and enjoyable Chardonnay. I don't care for Chardonnay's that have a sharp "bite" to them so I am partial to the more mellow wines. Also, most of the Australian Chardonnay's I have tried are somewhat fruity without being sweet. Anyway, I can buy a 1.5liter bottle of Yellow Tail for around $12 and it is a wine that has been steadily growing in popularity since last summer. I was wondering, in my initial post, if a 750ml bottle of George Lucas wine could, at $30, be that much better. Somehow I ended up modded as "off topic." Oh well, that wasn't my intention....
Slashdot Mirror
Okay, a silly example but how far from the truth is it? I just don't think these measures do much at all to prevent acts of terror.
Happy Trails!
Erick
Happy Trails!
Erick
Happy Trails!
Erick
Happy Trails!
Erick
However, the email service sounds great. 1GB of space is incredible but I think I would like the ability to do a fast search through all of my stored email even more. Even though the article notes that 1GB per user will cost Google only about $2 to maintain (they didn't say if that was a annual cost or what), if they did get 100M users that would be pretty expensive! It makes you wonder if they don't have a tiered service in mind down the road. Of course, this will be "advertiser supported" so who knows how invasive that will or will not be when using their mail services.
Still, this all smacks of either "window dressing" for Wall Street, "war paint" for Microsoft, or, perhaps, both? Either way the users will be winners for a least a little while.
Happy Trails!
Erick
Have fun!
Happy Trails!
Erick
Happy Trails!
Erick
But, how are people accidently buying the premium version? How do you accidentally type in your credit card information? I don't know about the rest of the world, but when I type in my credit card info I am *not* surprised when I get billed.
Happy Trails!
Erick
Happy Trails!
Erick
Happy Trails!
Erick
"Gorog said he resists comparisons with other subscription services because of incongruities in the way subscriber numbers are reported. But he expects the business will mature as users realize it's cheaper to pay a flat fee for access to 500,000 tracks than to pay $1 a song."
It's important to note that you still have to pay if you want to burn a song to a CD or otherwise use it outside of your computer. You do, however, get to use the song on up to three computers. Just a point of clarification because the article might lead one to believe that for a subscription fee you get unlimited downloads to use as you please and you really don't.
Keep Smilin'!
Erick
Take care!
Erick
Happy Trails!
Erick
Pretty good idea. I know that I will be very vigilant from now on when using an ATM.
Keep Smiling!
Erick
This is not the best way to conduct research. When I was doing research at NIH we would say of this sort of thing, "After discarding all data to the contrary, the hypothesis was proven."
While this research may show that Linux servers are over-represented in overt acts of hacking, this does not statistically make the Linux OS the least secure. Attacking a particular system simply makes it popular for attack. In order to characterize Linux, or any other OS, as the least secure, there would need to be evidence that an equal amount of other OS's were unsuccessfully attacked or the success rate was lower. Other variables that would required controls would be the hacker, level of sophistication of attack, etc. etc.
To say that "...while Linux servers were the most vulnerable,,," only means that they may have been the most targeted. I am not saying that the conclusions of this research are incorrect, I am saying that from what I have read, they cannot come to those conclusions.
Keep Smiling!
Erick
Keep Smiling!
Erick
Happy Trails!
Erick
Happy Trails!
Erick
Happy Trails!
Erick
Rick Lockridge: Illness and aging cause changes to your eyes, but the iris never changes from the eighth month of gestation until death. That's why EyeTicket and others feel iris-recognition technology is superior to thumbprint recognition and other competitors.
Happy Trails!
Erick
Happy Trails!
Erick
Despite such technical hurdles, space-based arms are legal. The Outer Space Treaty of 1967 only bans nuclear weapons and other weapons of mass destruction from orbit.
Happy Trails!
Erick
Take care!
Erick
Happy Trails!
Erick