A friend of mine just got back from Japan 2 weeks ago, and he said everyone had smart phones, and he didn't see one iPhone. The most notable thing he saw was lots of Nintendo DSs being used as PDAs.
The "resolution" of file is dependent on the chemical properties of the film, the amount of light (size of the lens), and the physical size of the film.
The "resolution" of a digital image is dependent on the electronic properties of the sensors, the amount of light (size of the lens), and the physical size of the sensor array.
Someone could, in theory, make a film camera that is higher resolution than a digital camera by making a huge honking lens and a huge honking piece of film. Then that same person could make a digital camera with even higher resolution by making a digital camera with an even bigger lens and bigger sensor. And on and on we can go.
But at this point, the industry has decided on digital. Even if someone records video on film, the first step is to scan it. So in effect, everything is digital. You can't easily adjust color, lighting, and add CG effects with film.
This obsolescence of film was solidified when George Lucas decided to film Star Wars Episode 1 in all digital. It was the first major movie that skipped the step of recording to film then scanning. It saved money and time, and improved the quality. Since then, even indie has gone digital. I don't think anyone is working on pushing film technology any longer. There's just no point in doing it only to have to spend the extra time and money to have the film scanned.
1) How do you know he is an American? 2) Assuming he is an American, I agree that everyone should know about it. But that is not a valid reason to insult someone. It closes people's minds, rather than opening them.
I see no reason that these botnet apps would not run perfectly fine as a non-administrator. They could install into the local users directory. They don't need any special access. Maybe Windows Firewall would stop them unless the admin allowed the app to connect out. In that case, Linux and OS X would actually be MORE vulnerable since those OSs don't ship with a firewall by default.
That was a very good informative reply, but please try to tone down the attitude. Searching law is not "basic research" and you don't need to make people feel angry or stupid for not knowing it. This is a very intelligent discussion so no need for insults.
That's a good point. I've never used the Intel compiler myself, and really, I would expect Intel to do something jerky like this any time I used a vendor-specific tool.
However, at GDC 2008, Intel had a big display where they were going on about their compilers and how well they optimized things. Apparently they have tools that can analyze the code and generate multithreaded code (sounded like OpenMP, kinda) and SIMD instructions (SSE, SSE2, etc.). They unambiguously claimed that those optimizations applied to both Intel and AMD processors. They went out of their way to assure people that they weren't doing this. So it is really funny to find out that they are. I hope they do the presentation again next year and so I can ask their engineers some very pointed questions about this. It sounds like they were flat-out lying.
I put WoW in its own directory in the root of my Apps drive
That's not what we are talking about. The discussion is about why applications should not store data C:\Program Files, on the system drive. What you have done is totally customized, and solves the problem that WOW introduces. I would probably do the same thing you are doing.
Of all these replies, the ACs are the insightful ones. (I'm replying to everyone else since the AC's won't come back to see this.)
To all those posting "but Dell has an agreement with Microsoft!" you are missing the point. Thousands of PC vendors do this all the time, and they never have required license agreements. I ran a small business doing this for years. People regularly resell a PC with modified bootloaders, system files, updates, and proprietary software installed. They don't have OEM agreements - they don't need them. These "modifications" do not create derivative works of Microsoft Windows. Installing a bootloader, or replacing system components does not violate a copyright.
That is why I'm confused with Psystar. The judgement seems to be claiming that installing an OS, then adding a bootloader or replacing system components is a derivative work, and is subject to copyright violation. But this happens 10,000 times a day and up until now, nobody ever considered it to be creating a derivative work, which is a copyright violation. And it has nothing to do with OEM agreements or EULAs.
This judgement is frightening. Are they saying that anyone who installs Linux on a Windows machine and resells it needs a special reseller agreement from Microsoft? That they are violating copyright? That's preposterous.
I have to agree with the parent. I stopped using VLC in preference for MPlayer. I am always amazed when VLC can't play something but MPlayer can, even though they both use FFMPEG for playback.
Trusted by who? Just because Microsoft or Dell trusts them doesn't mean I do. Odds are that the people doing the "pre-approval" would be in the top 5 of my untrusted list.
The problem with Firefox is that it also puts the user's cache folder there. It is supposed to go in the user's temporary folder, not their profile folder. So backup software will backup gigabytes of cache files. Many modern backup programs have custom rules lists to try and exclude this stuff, but Firefox is especially bad because the user's profile directory is named from a hash or something like that, making it especially tough to filter out. It also copies your cache with your roaming profile if you are on a corporate network, which slows Firefox and wastes disk space.
After you've modified the permissions to allow the app to save data there, switched to administrator mode to run it, and disabled the UAC. And modified your backup program to backup files in the Program Files directory, which most modern software will not backup. (I know, I worked for a backup software company, and we had to constantly update the rules engine for every little app that did this. It was a pain. Fortunately, there are fewer and fewer apps like that now than there were 10 years ago.)
And this doesn't even include the heck that it causes if there are multiple users playing WOW on the same machine.
If WOW put their files under the user's data directory like they are supposed to, the user would not need to do anything. They would simply run the backup software and those files would be automatically included.
There is a reason that all modern operating systems forbid this type of behavior. The separation of user data outside of program files is the tried and true way to make backups easy and have good security.
The reputation that AMD earned with the k5 and k6 was appropriate...Intel holding the lead during the time of the Athlon was as much Intels past ability to make a consistantly reliable product as it was any illegal practice.
The compatibility issues on those chips was fewer than the compatibility problems with Intel's own chips. But if there is a problem with an Intel chip, the compiler manufacturers work around it, and the OS vendors emulate the broken instruction or code around it. If AMD has a similar problem, there are press releases and everyone suddenly thinks "oh, I need Intel Inside (r)"
On the flip side, there was a period of a year or two where Intel's 440 motherboards were constantly experiencing compatibility problems. This was around the RDRAM era, which was another blight on Intel. But people continued to buy Intel during that period, even though AMD was winning in reliability AND performance AND price.
There were fishy things happening during that time. Big OEMs making press releases about switching to AMD, then signing-on with Intel for a few years more. Yeah, maybe they were bluffing to get a bargain. Or maybe Intel did back-door dealings with the decision makers.
They don't. But Intel does have a legal obligation to not cripple the product when detecting competing processors. The issue isn't that the compiler didn't know the capabilities of the other chips. It is that they intentionally ignored those capability bits and checked the manufacturer name instead.
So they installed OS X, then installed some updates to it. Is that really modifying OS X? Suppose Dell installs Windows on a computer, then installs a patch that overwrites a file that Microsoft distributed, then resells the computer. Did they sell a modified version of Windows? Is it a derivative work?
What are the profit margins on lawnmowers and lawnmower accessories? Gross margins on laptops are around 10%. Compare that to things like clothes, furniture, and food which might be 100% or 1000%. Often times electronics retailers profit only from the accessories like batteries.
There is a misunderstanding here. You still have to carry a power source, so you still must carry mass. And the same rule still applies: You must carry more energy to go further, and more energy means more mass. I'm not sure this discovery really helps with that.
Yes, but not if you chop down the ancient forest to do it. The new forest merely re-absorbs the CO2 released from chopping down the forest in the first place. But I can imagine some industry promoting this as a green initiative. Chop down trees, bury them, and grow new ones as a means of sequestering carbon.
That's simply ignorance of how flourescent's work.
Why do people on the internet insist on calling people ignorant at the drop of a hat? I sit a few cubes away from a Ph.D. in optical engineering who is writing articles on fluorescence.
I know full well how white fluorescent light works. They are designed to minimize the amount of UV leakage (and other spectrum of leakage, for that matter) so I find it unlikely that they would put out more UV than an incandescent bulb, which leaks all over the spectrum.
Anyway, all of this discussion is irrelevant, because it still doesn't say anything about the amount of UV that gets through the phosphor coating. The entire point of my post was citations, and you provided nothing helpful except yet more uninformed speculation.
exFAT may be a patent encumbered extension to a lame filesystem, but the ext2 drivers for Windows are a lousy counter proposal.
Perhaps those specific drivers are. But the proposal of using ext2 makes perfect sense. It's open, unpatented, and already has free implementations. The only reason for manufacturers not to support it is fear of reprisal from Redmond.
I wonder how much data is pulling images from Google Maps? I wonder if the maps application cached images better if it might help. It is silly when I have to wait to get a map of an area I was just in yesterday. I know the Google Earth desktop app can cache gigabytes of data. My 3GS has more than enough space to have a comparably sized cache.
It's worse than that. Most code actually doesn't have to do validate SQL inputs because the database API does it for you. For example:
PERL: $dbh->prepare('SELECT * FROM customers WHERE name = ?') $dbh->execute($lastname)
VB/C#/etc. SqlCommand dbc = new SqlCommand(); dbc.Command = "SELECT * FROM customers WHERE name = @name"; dbc.Parameters["@name"].CustomerName = ");' DROP TABLE customers"; dbc.Execute();
The above code will not result in a SQL injection. It will work fine. The developer doesn't have to do anything special. The only time this is a problem is when developers go directly to the database, and bypass the layer that protects them.
Slashdot Mirror
A friend of mine just got back from Japan 2 weeks ago, and he said everyone had smart phones, and he didn't see one iPhone. The most notable thing he saw was lots of Nintendo DSs being used as PDAs.
Not any more.
The "resolution" of file is dependent on the chemical properties of the film, the amount of light (size of the lens), and the physical size of the film.
The "resolution" of a digital image is dependent on the electronic properties of the sensors, the amount of light (size of the lens), and the physical size of the sensor array.
Someone could, in theory, make a film camera that is higher resolution than a digital camera by making a huge honking lens and a huge honking piece of film. Then that same person could make a digital camera with even higher resolution by making a digital camera with an even bigger lens and bigger sensor. And on and on we can go.
But at this point, the industry has decided on digital. Even if someone records video on film, the first step is to scan it. So in effect, everything is digital. You can't easily adjust color, lighting, and add CG effects with film.
This obsolescence of film was solidified when George Lucas decided to film Star Wars Episode 1 in all digital. It was the first major movie that skipped the step of recording to film then scanning. It saved money and time, and improved the quality. Since then, even indie has gone digital. I don't think anyone is working on pushing film technology any longer. There's just no point in doing it only to have to spend the extra time and money to have the film scanned.
1) How do you know he is an American?
2) Assuming he is an American, I agree that everyone should know about it. But that is not a valid reason to insult someone. It closes people's minds, rather than opening them.
I see no reason that these botnet apps would not run perfectly fine as a non-administrator. They could install into the local users directory. They don't need any special access. Maybe Windows Firewall would stop them unless the admin allowed the app to connect out. In that case, Linux and OS X would actually be MORE vulnerable since those OSs don't ship with a firewall by default.
That was a very good informative reply, but please try to tone down the attitude. Searching law is not "basic research" and you don't need to make people feel angry or stupid for not knowing it. This is a very intelligent discussion so no need for insults.
That's a good point. I've never used the Intel compiler myself, and really, I would expect Intel to do something jerky like this any time I used a vendor-specific tool.
However, at GDC 2008, Intel had a big display where they were going on about their compilers and how well they optimized things. Apparently they have tools that can analyze the code and generate multithreaded code (sounded like OpenMP, kinda) and SIMD instructions (SSE, SSE2, etc.). They unambiguously claimed that those optimizations applied to both Intel and AMD processors. They went out of their way to assure people that they weren't doing this. So it is really funny to find out that they are. I hope they do the presentation again next year and so I can ask their engineers some very pointed questions about this. It sounds like they were flat-out lying.
I put WoW in its own directory in the root of my Apps drive
That's not what we are talking about. The discussion is about why applications should not store data C:\Program Files, on the system drive. What you have done is totally customized, and solves the problem that WOW introduces. I would probably do the same thing you are doing.
Of all these replies, the ACs are the insightful ones. (I'm replying to everyone else since the AC's won't come back to see this.)
To all those posting "but Dell has an agreement with Microsoft!" you are missing the point. Thousands of PC vendors do this all the time, and they never have required license agreements. I ran a small business doing this for years. People regularly resell a PC with modified bootloaders, system files, updates, and proprietary software installed. They don't have OEM agreements - they don't need them. These "modifications" do not create derivative works of Microsoft Windows. Installing a bootloader, or replacing system components does not violate a copyright.
That is why I'm confused with Psystar. The judgement seems to be claiming that installing an OS, then adding a bootloader or replacing system components is a derivative work, and is subject to copyright violation. But this happens 10,000 times a day and up until now, nobody ever considered it to be creating a derivative work, which is a copyright violation. And it has nothing to do with OEM agreements or EULAs.
This judgement is frightening. Are they saying that anyone who installs Linux on a Windows machine and resells it needs a special reseller agreement from Microsoft? That they are violating copyright? That's preposterous.
I have to agree with the parent. I stopped using VLC in preference for MPlayer. I am always amazed when VLC can't play something but MPlayer can, even though they both use FFMPEG for playback.
Trusted by who? Just because Microsoft or Dell trusts them doesn't mean I do. Odds are that the people doing the "pre-approval" would be in the top 5 of my untrusted list.
The problem with Firefox is that it also puts the user's cache folder there. It is supposed to go in the user's temporary folder, not their profile folder. So backup software will backup gigabytes of cache files. Many modern backup programs have custom rules lists to try and exclude this stuff, but Firefox is especially bad because the user's profile directory is named from a hash or something like that, making it especially tough to filter out. It also copies your cache with your roaming profile if you are on a corporate network, which slows Firefox and wastes disk space.
just copy WoW's dir.
After you've modified the permissions to allow the app to save data there, switched to administrator mode to run it, and disabled the UAC. And modified your backup program to backup files in the Program Files directory, which most modern software will not backup. (I know, I worked for a backup software company, and we had to constantly update the rules engine for every little app that did this. It was a pain. Fortunately, there are fewer and fewer apps like that now than there were 10 years ago.)
And this doesn't even include the heck that it causes if there are multiple users playing WOW on the same machine.
If WOW put their files under the user's data directory like they are supposed to, the user would not need to do anything. They would simply run the backup software and those files would be automatically included.
There is a reason that all modern operating systems forbid this type of behavior. The separation of user data outside of program files is the tried and true way to make backups easy and have good security.
The reputation that AMD earned with the k5 and k6 was appropriate...Intel holding the lead during the time of the Athlon was as much Intels past ability to make a consistantly reliable product as it was any illegal practice.
The compatibility issues on those chips was fewer than the compatibility problems with Intel's own chips. But if there is a problem with an Intel chip, the compiler manufacturers work around it, and the OS vendors emulate the broken instruction or code around it. If AMD has a similar problem, there are press releases and everyone suddenly thinks "oh, I need Intel Inside (r)"
On the flip side, there was a period of a year or two where Intel's 440 motherboards were constantly experiencing compatibility problems. This was around the RDRAM era, which was another blight on Intel. But people continued to buy Intel during that period, even though AMD was winning in reliability AND performance AND price.
There were fishy things happening during that time. Big OEMs making press releases about switching to AMD, then signing-on with Intel for a few years more. Yeah, maybe they were bluffing to get a bargain. Or maybe Intel did back-door dealings with the decision makers.
They don't. But Intel does have a legal obligation to not cripple the product when detecting competing processors. The issue isn't that the compiler didn't know the capabilities of the other chips. It is that they intentionally ignored those capability bits and checked the manufacturer name instead.
So they installed OS X, then installed some updates to it. Is that really modifying OS X? Suppose Dell installs Windows on a computer, then installs a patch that overwrites a file that Microsoft distributed, then resells the computer. Did they sell a modified version of Windows? Is it a derivative work?
If not, how is what Psystar did any different?
What are the profit margins on lawnmowers and lawnmower accessories? Gross margins on laptops are around 10%. Compare that to things like clothes, furniture, and food which might be 100% or 1000%. Often times electronics retailers profit only from the accessories like batteries.
There is a misunderstanding here. You still have to carry a power source, so you still must carry mass. And the same rule still applies: You must carry more energy to go further, and more energy means more mass. I'm not sure this discovery really helps with that.
I'm glad the natives cataloged these statistics for us.
Yes, but not if you chop down the ancient forest to do it. The new forest merely re-absorbs the CO2 released from chopping down the forest in the first place. But I can imagine some industry promoting this as a green initiative. Chop down trees, bury them, and grow new ones as a means of sequestering carbon.
That's simply ignorance of how flourescent's work.
Why do people on the internet insist on calling people ignorant at the drop of a hat? I sit a few cubes away from a Ph.D. in optical engineering who is writing articles on fluorescence.
I know full well how white fluorescent light works. They are designed to minimize the amount of UV leakage (and other spectrum of leakage, for that matter) so I find it unlikely that they would put out more UV than an incandescent bulb, which leaks all over the spectrum.
Anyway, all of this discussion is irrelevant, because it still doesn't say anything about the amount of UV that gets through the phosphor coating. The entire point of my post was citations, and you provided nothing helpful except yet more uninformed speculation.
So, finally, I did find a link on this, although it doesn't say how much.
Ultraviolet light radiation from fluorescent lights is not dangerous
This was the first thing I thought of too.
I, for one, pay for high-quality Tor exit nodes. :-)
exFAT may be a patent encumbered extension to a lame filesystem, but the ext2 drivers for Windows are a lousy counter proposal.
Perhaps those specific drivers are. But the proposal of using ext2 makes perfect sense. It's open, unpatented, and already has free implementations. The only reason for manufacturers not to support it is fear of reprisal from Redmond.
I wonder how much data is pulling images from Google Maps? I wonder if the maps application cached images better if it might help. It is silly when I have to wait to get a map of an area I was just in yesterday. I know the Google Earth desktop app can cache gigabytes of data. My 3GS has more than enough space to have a comparably sized cache.
validate your SQL input
It's worse than that. Most code actually doesn't have to do validate SQL inputs because the database API does it for you. For example:
PERL:
$dbh->prepare('SELECT * FROM customers WHERE name = ?')
$dbh->execute($lastname)
VB/C#/etc.
SqlCommand dbc = new SqlCommand();
dbc.Command = "SELECT * FROM customers WHERE name = @name";
dbc.Parameters["@name"].CustomerName = ");' DROP TABLE customers";
dbc.Execute();
The above code will not result in a SQL injection. It will work fine. The developer doesn't have to do anything special. The only time this is a problem is when developers go directly to the database, and bypass the layer that protects them.