Yes, I tried out Live Motion. Compared to Flash it stunk.
But remember, great tools take time to mature. In 1996 when Macromedia bought FutureSplash and renamed it to Flash, it was a very poor tool that had a lot of potential. It didn't become very useful until version 3 or 4.
If you hold LiveMotion up to early versions of FutureSplash/Flash, they're about the same in terms of UI and functionality. I think Adobe made the right decision to ash-can the product, because there was no way that they were ever going to touch Flash.
What would be nice is if Adobe starts to integrate their powerhouse bitmap transforming & rendering technologies into Flash.
Actually, Adobe already tried this with Flash competitor called Live Motion. It was a tool that had great potential, but it couldn't make inroads into the market that Flash totally dominated. Adobe admitted defeat and pulled it from market in 2003.
Microsoft does not want to say:
"We just patched 3491 extremely critical bugs this month alone - see how secure our OS is!!!!"
It's a bit difficult to be touting your OS as the most secure, but at the same time be frantically patching hundereds, if not thousands of bugs each month.
If a group of 45 year-olds start hanging around a storefront cursing, drinking, stealing, and deterring the attendance of honest paying customers, and the shop owner takes steps to deter the presence of those 45 year-olds, would you be claiming that the shop owner is anti-adult?
OT:
I love cirond... they make PocketWinC.
I actually PAID them the $12 for the software and it was worth every penny.
No, I don't work for or own stock in Cirond.
I just read a really awesome article that is *totally unrelated* to this/. post... apparently cell phones can be used to monitor traffic flow! Did anybody else know about this?
Well, according to Microsoft, it's within the parameters of the license agreement and MS has OK'ed the selling. So Davies is just pissed off because somebody can undercut him. Booo hoo.
There's a difference between somebody who's bought a product and wants to share their personal opinion with the world, vs. somebody who's being paid three to seventy-five cents to write something they know nothing about.
About 2 weeks ago, news stories were circulating regarding how dictionaries and encyclopedias deliberately insert false entries into their compendiums. They do this to catch obvious theft of their information.
There remains the possibility that GOOGLE themselves or another company that keeps map data has inserted their own false information.
Rather than think about how much you could make per hour on this, think about how much your time is worth. Are you worth $65,000 per year? Maybe you're worth more or you value your time more? In any case, at $65,000 per year, you make about $0.52 per minute.
So to accomplish the 3 cent task and make your time worth it, you should spend no more than about 2 and a half seconds from the second you begin to the second you finish and get approval.
On some of the higher paying ones, oh, say $0.40 for writing a full product review, you could devote almost a full minute!
You curiosity as to the 3d tools used is understandable, but saying it has a 3d Max 'feel' to it is like saying "Oh, what I nice house... I would guess that it was constructed with a Stanley brand hammer."
My point: a software tool is just a tool... what is produced with it is entirely up to the expertise of the person using it.
I watched the (tedious) demo of the software, and it indicates that it does NOT delete the media (video, music, etc), but simply runs the uninstallers for the file-sharing applications it finds.
LOL... The Windows folder was protected by a password. So I tried both "administrator" and "password" and neither worked, therefore, this can't be a Windows machine.
Would it not make more sense to be proactive and just outright buy a security company, or at least buy their services to just beat the shit out of Windows 24/7? This way, most flaws would be known first to MS, and could be patched before they become widely exploitable.
What the fuck am I missing from this equation? Never mind the snappy responses about how M$ are greedy bastards... from a business perspective, why the hell hasn't some top level big-wig at MS pushed for this?
Alot of people are correctly pointing out the sloppy 'news' reporting by slashdot these days by pointing out the costs or R & D, marketing, etc... that should also be factored into the per-chip cost.
Well here's some Intel Financial Data. Please use it responsibly. Surely somebody with some smarts can use this to determine a 'real' per-chip cost.
Why the fuck would you composite the image server-side, then send the entired thing back to the client upon each page refresh? What a waste of bandwidth!
Off the top of my head, I can think of about 4 easy solutions that would reduce the bandwidth by about 76,800 times, or allow 76,800 times more participants because the damned server wouldn't cack out immediately...
Site's been pwned - Try google cache
on
Defeating Captcha
·
· Score: 1
The days of having to 'do something' to get a virus are long gone my friend. Now all you have to do is be connected to the net on a Windows machine to get rocked.
I got IRC Bot on a fresh install of XP in about 2 minutes.
I was behind a NAT firewall but accidentally left on port forwarding for winMX. After initial log in, the very first thing I did was install Norton Antivirus 2005 which detected the virus.
Slashdot Mirror
I blame Gucci for not making my wallet more secure.
We're not going to be pushing for a ban on HTML are we? Because HTML *can* be used for
Yes, I tried out Live Motion. Compared to Flash it stunk.
But remember, great tools take time to mature. In 1996 when Macromedia bought FutureSplash and renamed it to Flash, it was a very poor tool that had a lot of potential. It didn't become very useful until version 3 or 4.
If you hold LiveMotion up to early versions of FutureSplash/Flash, they're about the same in terms of UI and functionality. I think Adobe made the right decision to ash-can the product, because there was no way that they were ever going to touch Flash.
What would be nice is if Adobe starts to integrate their powerhouse bitmap transforming & rendering technologies into Flash.
Actually, Adobe already tried this with Flash competitor called Live Motion. It was a tool that had great potential, but it couldn't make inroads into the market that Flash totally dominated. Adobe admitted defeat and pulled it from market in 2003.
Microsoft does not want to say:
"We just patched 3491 extremely critical bugs this month alone - see how secure our OS is!!!!"
It's a bit difficult to be touting your OS as the most secure, but at the same time be frantically patching hundereds, if not thousands of bugs each month.
If a group of 45 year-olds start hanging around a storefront cursing, drinking, stealing, and deterring the attendance of honest paying customers, and the shop owner takes steps to deter the presence of those 45 year-olds, would you be claiming that the shop owner is anti-adult?
OT: I love cirond... they make PocketWinC. I actually PAID them the $12 for the software and it was worth every penny. No, I don't work for or own stock in Cirond.
I just read a really awesome article that is *totally unrelated* to this /. post... apparently cell phones can be used to monitor traffic flow! Did anybody else know about this?
He's "stunned"
Well, according to Microsoft, it's within the parameters of the license agreement and MS has OK'ed the selling. So Davies is just pissed off because somebody can undercut him. Booo hoo.
Well, this would turn out to be another Biodome if not for Dr. Mills patented cure-all energy tonic.
How timely!
There's a difference between somebody who's bought a product and wants to share their personal opinion with the world, vs. somebody who's being paid three to seventy-five cents to write something they know nothing about.
Yes, and approving pictures of places they've never seen, and writing product reviews of products they could never understand.
This might not be a prank.
0 829ta_talk_alford
About 2 weeks ago, news stories were circulating regarding how dictionaries and encyclopedias deliberately insert false entries into their compendiums. They do this to catch obvious theft of their information.
There remains the possibility that GOOGLE themselves or another company that keeps map data has inserted their own false information.
Here's a refresher article on the false entries in dictionaries/encyclopedias: http://www.newyorker.com/talk/content/articles/05
Rather than think about how much you could make per hour on this, think about how much your time is worth. Are you worth $65,000 per year? Maybe you're worth more or you value your time more? In any case, at $65,000 per year, you make about $0.52 per minute.
So to accomplish the 3 cent task and make your time worth it, you should spend no more than about 2 and a half seconds from the second you begin to the second you finish and get approval.
On some of the higher paying ones, oh, say $0.40 for writing a full product review, you could devote almost a full minute!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plausible_deniability b ility.php l
http://www.kavinay.com/dictionary/plausible_denia
http://www.fpif.org/briefs/vol3/v3n20hri_body.htm
You curiosity as to the 3d tools used is understandable, but saying it has a 3d Max 'feel' to it is like saying "Oh, what I nice house... I would guess that it was constructed with a Stanley brand hammer."
My point: a software tool is just a tool... what is produced with it is entirely up to the expertise of the person using it.
I watched the (tedious) demo of the software, and it indicates that it does NOT delete the media (video, music, etc), but simply runs the uninstallers for the file-sharing applications it finds.
LOL... The Windows folder was protected by a password. So I tried both "administrator" and "password" and neither worked, therefore, this can't be a Windows machine.
- releasing a patch after the report of said vulnerability
- buying an antivirus company
- buying an anti-spyware company
Would it not make more sense to be proactive and just outright buy a security company, or at least buy their services to just beat the shit out of Windows 24/7? This way, most flaws would be known first to MS, and could be patched before they become widely exploitable.What the fuck am I missing from this equation? Never mind the snappy responses about how M$ are greedy bastards... from a business perspective, why the hell hasn't some top level big-wig at MS pushed for this?
Alot of people are correctly pointing out the sloppy 'news' reporting by slashdot these days by pointing out the costs or R & D, marketing, etc... that should also be factored into the per-chip cost.
Well here's some Intel Financial Data. Please use it responsibly. Surely somebody with some smarts can use this to determine a 'real' per-chip cost.
The 3 replies to my post seem to indicate that the only possible solution is to composite the image on the client side... WRONG!"
You have the client ask each second/minute for the next byte/60-bytes and do the redraw on the client end.
Don't be such dumb-asses.
Why the fuck would you composite the image server-side, then send the entired thing back to the client upon each page refresh? What a waste of bandwidth!
Off the top of my head, I can think of about 4 easy solutions that would reduce the bandwidth by about 76,800 times, or allow 76,800 times more participants because the damned server wouldn't cack out immediately...
http://72.14.207.104/search?q=cache:0navd8Ukq_wJ:
Here's the updated URL:
1 0_list_of_data_disasters/0,39023769,39207076,00.ht m
http://www.zdnet.com.au/insight/software/soa/Top_
The days of having to 'do something' to get a virus are long gone my friend. Now all you have to do is be connected to the net on a Windows machine to get rocked.
I got IRC Bot on a fresh install of XP in about 2 minutes.
I was behind a NAT firewall but accidentally left on port forwarding for winMX. After initial log in, the very first thing I did was install Norton Antivirus 2005 which detected the virus.