I guess you didn't actually read the reference pages you berating. From the Rotoscoping wikipedia page:
In the mid-1990s, Bob Sabiston, an animator and computer scientist veteran of the MIT Media Lab, developed a computer-assisted "interpolated rotoscoping" process which he used to make his award-winning short film "Snack and Drink". Director Richard Linklater subsequently employed Sabiston's artistry and his proprietary Rotoshop software in the full-length feature films Waking Life (2001) and A Scanner Darkly (2006).[7] Linklater licensed the same proprietary rotoscoping process for the look of both films. Linklater is the first director to use digital rotoscoping to create an entire feature film. Additionally, a 2005–08 advertising campaign by Charles Schwab uses Sabiston's rotoscoping work for a series of television spots, under the tagline "Talk to Chuck".
So, even though Rotoscoping was first a manual technique done in 1915 and patented in 1917 (tracing live action frames that are projected onto the back of a frosted glass panel), that process moved to using a computer, and then was automated within the Rotoshop software.
There's even a patent from 1994 mentioned: US Patent 6,061,462 http://www.google.com/patents?vid=6061462 for a digital rotoscoping process (that's a separate work from the Rotoshop software).
These may all be listed in Microsoft's patent - I haven't read it - but they certainly seem related, if not prior art.
why would anyone buy a laptop from amazon when its the same price from best buy?
Because best buy is freaking awful.
More to your point though, I'd be interested to see some stats on total number of laptop+nettop+ultrabook-apple units moved by the two (the grouping is because those categories blur the lines far too much, and apple sales don't matter in this case). There's a very good chance best buy outsells amazon on laptops, but I wouldn't be surprised if the figures are pretty close
A list of exactly what is being violated? To put it in perspective, consider the SCO-Linux lawsuits. While this isn't exactly the same, it is the same sort of hurdle.
Company A: Your stuff violates some of our stuff! Pay us or else! Company B: What stuff? Company A: A lot of stuff! 68 things enumerated over thousands of places to be precise. Now pay us or else! Company B: Um, what stuff is it exactly? Company A: Oh, you'll find out in court. Consider yourself served!... And for those that agree (settle out of court), it seems common for a "deal" to be offered, with one of the rules being that they don't divulge that information.
Maybe that's not the case here, but I'm betting that's at least part of it (the other part being bogus or weak patents). There may even be a couple valid ones, but as far as I know, that hasn't been fully identified.
Picking up tiny SSD is not a solution for notebook or for the desktop - you need more ports, more money, more energy etc
A great many laptops have mini PCIe slots. I have a Dell Inspiron 1720 (core 2 duo from May 2008) that has THREE of these (two of which are open; one holds a wifi card which I recently upgraded). You could pop an mSATA in either of the other two. BIOS might not see it correctly (one of the slots in the 1720 is labeled to support mSATA, and docs say the others won't work, but I don't believe it... I had to put the new wifi in the mSATA slot because my card was half length and that's the only place I could get antanna's to stretch to - wifi catcher switch doesn't work now, but linux sees and uses the new card just fine).
For the desktop... I don't know what you're talking about. You can fit two 2.5" drives in a 3.5" drive slot (or in the external 3.5" spot), or more in a 5.25" slot, or use a PCIx card solution, etc.
More energy? Really? The SSHD's have a flash drive and spinning platters in them. Having those separate *might* use a little more power, but that just depends on what drives you buy. The difference will be negligible at best.
Same thing for: http://www.aliexpress.com/item/2013-New-Iconia-Tab-A210-10g16u-10-1-Inch-16GB-Tablet-Gray/891858062.html 2013 New Iconia Tab A210-10g16u 10.1-Inch 16GB Tablet (Gray) Tablet Data Capacity: 32GB.... title says 16GB; iconia a210 normally ships with 16GB Network Communiction: Built-in 3G,Bluetooth,Wifi,4G LTE,External 3G... Highly doubt the 3G, 4G, external 3G Processor Manufacture: Samsung... iconia a210 ships with an NVIDIA Tegra 3 Memory Capacity: 2GB... Maybe this is right, but the A210's I've found online have only 1GB
Unless someone real (not just an A/C, and someone with a normal comment history) can attest to this place, I'll be avoiding it completely, an recommending others to do the same. Looks way too shady.
Much of this is because he is so busy and just wants to get everything out the door.
The real solution is to hire a junior developer to help out, either to take some of the workload off the senior developer, or to simply make the corrections instead of the OP.
AFAICT, this guy IS the junion developer. Three possible options: 1. quit 2. get him to change (unlikely), or get him fired (if he's senior and pumping out lots of stuff that looks iike it works, this is unlikely) 3. speak to him + management; see if he/they see benefit in a maintainable product; if so, propose that you be his bitch / code filter, and your job becomes quality control (you fix his stuff; improve/add automatic code checkers; clean up the source; etc etc). If they see the benefit in that over you smashing on the keyboard to make more of a mess and add a couple features, then great (assuming you want that job). Else, see #1 and #2.
If OP doesn't like that, then the best way to lead is by example. If you just spew out standards and stuff, or just clean up his mess, he's not going to change. On your parts of the project, where you add some new files (not a modification to existing files), do it the right way and add testing and make those tests be required to pass before a code commit is allowed. That way, if he borks something you added to badly, then he won't be able to check it in. It'll make for a bit of a war for a while, but someone will win or break eventually:-)
Should have just ranked them by speed. Slowest to fastest: Nvidia with open source drivers AMD with open source drivers AMD with closed source drivers Nvidia with closed source drivers... I'd like to know where Intel's rank in that line up. I know they're slower than the closed source ones, but what about the open source ones (and what cards?)?
Yes, Intel sells CPUs with GPUs integrated. That doesn't change the fact that their core business is selling CPUs not GPUs. Or please link to where I can buy a discrete GPU from Intel. Nvidia's core business, on the other hand, is their GPUs.
Good point... personally, I'd like to purchase discrete intel video cards. I don't need core i7 performance, don't want the power consumption, and definitely don't want the price. AMD FX is fine by me. However, Intel's recent video performance is good enough, and completely open and well supported on Linux. I'd enjoy that combo. Currently, I've got a AMD FX box with nvidia card, and an AMD A-series box using the their integrated graphics. The Nvidia is much easier to work with (using proprietary drivers), and I've had a bunch of silly issues with the AMD graphics (tried both drivers).
I'm not sure why Intel doesn't release a discrete card, except maybe that they want to keep Nvidia alive and let them fight that battle.
How is it theft to take what the machine is handing you**, but it's not theft when the machine gladly takes your money?
I realize there's the whole "intent" thing, and knowing it's more than you're supposed to get, but you're dealing with a machine that, conversely, lacks that ability to understand in the other direction. If I accidentally push the $10 button instead of the $1 button, it'll gladly take my $10 and there's not shit that can be done about it. If it accidentally gives me 10x's the money it's supposed to.... turn about is fair play as far as I'm concerned.
What, am I supposed to believe that all those bells and chimes and lights and scantly clad waitresses and free drinks are there to help me make better decisions? They're there to entice people into forking over more money than they intended to part with. Two guys found a way to get one model of machines to fork over more than they wanted to, and it really wasn't *that* much (no where near what the casinos take in). So what.
** the payouts were so big, that people actually handed him the money. They could have stopped right there.
Every time I've ever played those damn machines, they take all my money. I've managed a win here or there, but never came out on top, and whatever budget I set for myself was exhausted in short order. We're told that's how they're supposed to work; that the odds are in the houses favor; that walking away with more money than you start with is supposed to be a rare thing. These two guys pull that off, and they walk away with around $500k or so (each?), and they're the ones getting arrested? WTF?!? The casino's openly say they're just going to keep fleecing everyone, and we're all fine with that, but two guys get a couple bucks (by just pushing the buttons on the front that they're allowed to push) and they're evil?
The casinos should just fix the bug, or enable the work around, and move on. The first guy has played $12 MILLION in video poker prior to this. The house has made plenty to cover this relatively minor payout. Let these two guys be happy and tell all their friends how much they won, and put them on banners and billboards saying "look at these big winners!!!", and they'll get plenty more people flocking to the machines and losing it all.
I don't think they broken any of the mentioned laws, and the CFAA should be neutered, but none of that even matters. The casinos are already ahead of the game cash-wise; they've ID'd the bug; it's simple to disable the bug-causing feature; there's probably an update that fixes it; they're legally allowed to bar these guys from ever coming back (but why would they!?!!? he spent $12million on video poker alone before ever even discovering this bug); and last but not least, SHOULDN'T THEY BE SUING IGN (maker of the game)!?!?!
This is what they were able to build. Rev 2. (probably when they get to mass producing it) will have better battery life
Not only this, but the article is simply flamebait:
But for all the hype surrounding another category of wearable devices — connected eyewear — early tests with Google Glass suggest battery performance may be absolutely awful.
I would hardly call 5 hours of continuous use "absolutely awful". Personally, I'd put that in the "could be better" category. If I'm sitting at my computer, I'm probably going to take them off; If I'm playing frisbee or basketball etc, I'm taking them off; if I'm just sitting around the house, I'm taking them off; etc etc. I think 5 hours a day is more than I'd use them anyway... but all those times when you take them off, they could also be charging.
The article gets much worse though:
If the user captures longer videos and uses Glass a bit more regularly, Stevens believes the headset will only last “a couple of hours” before the battery dies.
A device that only lasts two hours between charges is not the future of tech.
That wasn't a test. That was what he thought would happen, and he didn't try it. I doubt that claim is accurate. The screen and communications channels are running the whole time anyway, and that's probably sucking the majority of the power. Recording while doing so probably won't make much of a difference... but I'm just postulating too. Maybe he should have actually tested it, since he has one! And then they follow it up with a statement, as if that was actually fact. That's rotten.
I've looked at battery powered pico projectors over the years (never got one though), and most claimed around 2 hours life. That's *nearly* enough, but I want to be sure I'll be able to finish a movie on one. This, IMO, is similar. If it gets 2.5 hours or more, I think that's pretty good for constant recording or playing (besides, where are you storing 2.5+ hours of HD video?), and this isn't meant to replace video cameras. I don't know what they're thinking.
A complaint about batterly life from someone that probably wouldn't wear this in public for more than 10 minutes... yeah, I don't care what he has to say. (I'm not saying I'd wear it all that much either... but I'm not going to berate the battery life of something I wouldn't use anyway)
With an average lens or video camera, which means that it doesn't apply to super telephoto lenses and it doesn't apply to cameras that are concealed.
This thing is hardly conceled. Certainly no more so than a cell phone camera, which is quite common. Heck, I'd argue that a cell phone camera is even more conceled, since it's primarily a phone, and there's lot of other stuff you can do on a phone, and it's not always obvious you're pointing its camera at someone; whereas, with Google Glass, there's this chunky thing attached to a weird partial glasses frame on someones face - it doesn't just blend in, and it doesn't look like ordinary glasses in any way.
Here I was thinking that they should have built it into more normal looking glasses (like the mp3 player glasses that have been around for years, but a better style), but the wierd look might work to their advantage legally.
If it made no sense, I'm not sure how it could have lasted so long.
Really? "so long"? Your sense of time is bizarre! This is a very rapidly evolving sector (software), and it's still very young in comparison to just about anything else out there. That's in addition to the fact that your point is utterly wrong, your argument is a logical fallacy, you quote something that was not said, and you even include one example that does work. If we're just talking about games (your example), the software (the game engine) could be open sourced, and the pay-per-copy model can still be used for the content (art, music, graphics, maps, etc). Games may be the easiest type of software to transition to open source.
The GP's example of the ideal situation is more flexible than a strict pay-before-work. When one is paid doesn't even matter. The point is there would be an agreement of some sort (contract, employment agreement, etc) where one is paid for the act of doing something, and when done, that something (the resulting software) can be used by the person that paid for it. In a great many cases, resale of that result isn't the goal; pay-per-copy would never have applied. In cases where pay-per-copy currently applies, the pay to the developer still works the same way in virtual all situations. In those cases, there's a large enough end user population to use other methods to allow the business to run (paid support, paid implementations/services, micropayments, sell the app and open source the software, hosted services, ads, dual licensing, etc). Besides, no one said "pay-per-copy makes no sense"... you made up that straw man.
And how can they prove his guilt if he's hiding out like a common criminal?
Damn straight! He needs to be present to be bound, rocks attached, and thrown in a river to see if he's guilty and floats! I'm sure Giles Corey wished he had a place to hide instead of having his innocence proven-to-death (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giles_Corey).
Assuming the GP's figure is close to accurate, "99% of the world's gold is sitting in a vault", it explains itself. The rarity of gold IN CIRCULATION combined with its physical properties (ie. it's desirable for many applications) sets its base price, and the higher the rarity (assuming there's still enough out there to be useful), the higher that price. So, stockpile a lot of it and lock it away, and what remains grows in value.
This is actually the same thing that happens to bitcoin, and is a big part of why they claim it self regulates... As bitcoin is removed from the market (bought and moved into savings), the price of bitcoin on the exchange goes up. Supposedly, the market would still work with just one bitcoin on the exchange. If it got to that point, adding one bitcoin from savings back into the exchange would earn someone a healthy chunk of money, but the price of bitcoin would drop in half instantly. This is supposed to mean that having a big pile of it doesn't help you, because if you have 100 bitcoin, it's not worth 100 x's the current price as each one put into the exchange reduces the price of the rest of bitcoin on the exchange. IMO, that doesn't make sense, and would make speculation increase (buy one, hope price goes up really high, sell high, wait for it to drop again as others try to do the same, repeat). This paragraph probably has a LOT of details wrong, misworded, etc, but the main point is still there... bitcoin chose it's block creation algorithm such that it approximates the rate at which commodities like gold are mined. (see : https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Controlled_Currency_Supply).
Anyway, if all the gold was released into circulation, the price per ounce would certainly drop, but that doesn't mean it wouldn't be just as useful as currency. It's value is based highly on what is in circulation, and that total value (amount_in_circulation * price) would probably be about the same. That's what bitcoin is counting on, and it plays a very similar rarity game.
According to the state you don't have a right to drive a vehicle. BTW, if a license is required to do something it's not a right.
Wrong on at least two counts.
You need a license to drive a vehicle ON PUBLIC ROADS. That may seem like a trivial detail to you, but it makes all the difference when your framing this as a rights issue. Plenty of farms, for example, have underage (under legal driving age) people, and adults, driving vehicles all over their farm without a license.
As others have pointed out, a licensing requirement does not mean something is not a right.
There's really no excuse for NYC or other US metro areas to not have better internet service even if they do end up having a smaller population in the metro area.
There are plenty of excuses, and even some valid ones. Population density just isn't one of them. IMO, the age of the city and its infrastructure plays the biggest role. Keep in mind, Tokyo was hit very very hard during World War II (1944). So, even though Tokyo has been around for centuries, an awful lot of it is new.
You're still missing the point entirely. What protects your cert? Is it just filesystem permissions? Is it encrypted with a password that must be entered when the webserver restarts, or encrypted and the webserver config (or helper script) holds a password, or not encrypted? The cert authenticates who you are. So if someone gets a copy of your private cert, they can pretend to be you.
To keep the cert secure, it should be encrypted. A key server serves to provide decryption (or a key to decrypt) the cert in a secure manor. It gets more complicated than that, but that's the general idea. If you're just trusting some "secure middle man" (which isn't the only concern), how do you think they keep all that information secure?
This has nothing to do with the HTTPS encryption on the wire, nor with the DH key exchange, nor with certificate chain validation up to Verisign/Comodo/etc. (well, their appliance may assist in one or more of those things, but that's not the complex bit).
Look up "PCI DSS Encrption Key Management" for more info.
I could see that thing being awesome for golf... they already do GPS through smart phones.. if it can tell you how far away an object is in your field of vision, pretty darn spiffy.. show you a trail where your ball went, display your swing trajectory in your field of view for analysis... lots of cool things. Plus golfers will spend that kind of money.
That'd be cool, but it's not going to be possible (AFAICT) with the first version. The resolution (720p) and framerate of the camera won't be able to see the ball, especially with your head swinging around as well. It has monocular vision, so it's going to be piss poor at determining object distances. I don't see this happening.
don't know about you but if i'm going to buy a home i want to see it.
You've got it all backwards. Do you even know that the topic is Google Glass? If you were looking at a home, you'd go there, and put on the glasses, and walk around and do your tour. The glasses could provide you with additional info on the house, and could also record your experience so the agent had a peak at what you were doing (likes/dislikes/etc).
I'm not saying it's a good idea, but it's not the non-existent idea you were debating:-)
Turning on https on a web server doesn't require a security expert.
So, you have a cert, and a webserver. Is that cert protected by a password?
- if no, then anyone that gains access to the server and/or cert can break all transmissions. For example, do you have a backup of the cert? Is it floating around in an email somewhere? How many people can get access to it? etc.
- if yes, then where is that password? How do you go about protecting the password that protects the cert? You'll run into some of the same problems in protecting the password. That's one of the main problems that a key server solves (I'm pretty sure that's the main goal, or at least one of the primary goals, of the StronKey CryptoCabinet, but I haven't looked into it specifically enough yet)
Any time you encrypt anything, you need some sort of key, and you must protect it somehow, and still make it available for use in said encryption/decryption. Maybe you don't *need* that level of security, but some do, and it's the hard part (er... well... one of the hard parts)
The year is 2013. The developed world, and much of the developing world, is now comfortable with computers and can very easily understand and work with something like... oh, I don't know... a password manager. I've seen 8 year olds and 80 year olds pick up KeePass in nothing flat.
If you go with the password manager route (or just memorize them), every site will SEE the username and password for itself. This means that every site must implement all the password and account management things securely (ex. password reset). This includes system security as well.
If one uses single sign-on, the participating sites never see the password (in most implementations).
So, the upshot is that you don't end up with a bunch of bit players trying to re-invent the wheel badly, each being an authentication breech waiting to happen. Add to that the fact that many users re-use the same password at multiple sites, and the situation looks worse.
The downside is that, if someone gets your single sign-on account information, then they get access to all your sites. The same is true if they get your keepass db and password, but that's not a service that runs somewhere else.
I think one of the most confusing bits about single sign-on is the end user perception on how its sold... the "you only need to remember one account" is often the first selling point that is pushed. That's really just a side effect. The "no site ever has access to your password" is the bigger selling point, but it's too confusing to explain how that works, and people don't really care.
It's trivial to remove the "authenticate once, single sign-on, and when you visit another participating site you don't have to login again" part. For example, see section 2.1.1 of the Jasig CAS protocol (http://www.jasig.org/cas/protocol),
renew [OPTIONAL] - if this parameter is set, single sign-on will be bypassed. In this case, CAS will require the client to present credentials regardless of the existence of a single sign-on session with CAS.
When that is set, the CAS IdP does not automatically redirect you back to the original site. It will not re-use the established SSO session. It will prompt for login again. This could easily be set on the users profile, or globally on the IdP. You'd then still have the benefit that each participating site would never see your credentials, but it would prevent sites from automatically logging you in. You could also use this to enter different credentials (ie. more than one account on the CAS IdP), so you could still have multiple accounts, and the sites would be none the wiser.
All that said, I'm personally comfortable with maintaining a separate username and password for every service I use, and still prefer it. Besides, the scary part isn't that some site could get the password I use for them, but that some site could be storing a bunch of information about me and I don't want that to get leaked (like vudu's recent thing, where they got hacked and leaked the last 4 digits of users credit cards - the first 4 - 8 digits identify the type of card, the bank, and the branch office where the account was opened, so they're not that difficult to guess; the last 4 are the most unique part of your CC#, so it sucks that it's common practice to print that on all receipts and store it everywhere).
First link explains how a capture was done (which was fairly simple). The second link has frames captured from the device. The third has a graphic to clear up how the frames are interlaced.
In short, it outputs pixel interlaced 640x480 frames (every other byte of image data goes to left then right frame; grab 1280 bytes, and you have one row of image from each left and right camera after minor post processing). Your left with the frames from both cameras, and the magic happens on the PC in software (and/or drivers, depending on where you draw the line for what constitutes a driver).
Back to the point, there's no reason not to open source the driver - the little bit that talks to the device and gets data back. Looks like that part is going to be fairly easy to do anyway, so open drivers will likely show up soon after official release.
Slashdot Mirror
I guess you didn't actually read the reference pages you berating. From the Rotoscoping wikipedia page:
In the mid-1990s, Bob Sabiston, an animator and computer scientist veteran of the MIT Media Lab, developed a computer-assisted "interpolated rotoscoping" process which he used to make his award-winning short film "Snack and Drink". Director Richard Linklater subsequently employed Sabiston's artistry and his proprietary Rotoshop software in the full-length feature films Waking Life (2001) and A Scanner Darkly (2006).[7] Linklater licensed the same proprietary rotoscoping process for the look of both films. Linklater is the first director to use digital rotoscoping to create an entire feature film. Additionally, a 2005–08 advertising campaign by Charles Schwab uses Sabiston's rotoscoping work for a series of television spots, under the tagline "Talk to Chuck".
So, even though Rotoscoping was first a manual technique done in 1915 and patented in 1917 (tracing live action frames that are projected onto the back of a frosted glass panel), that process moved to using a computer, and then was automated within the Rotoshop software.
There's even a patent from 1994 mentioned: US Patent 6,061,462 http://www.google.com/patents?vid=6061462 for a digital rotoscoping process (that's a separate work from the Rotoshop software).
These may all be listed in Microsoft's patent - I haven't read it - but they certainly seem related, if not prior art.
why would anyone buy a laptop from amazon when its the same price from best buy?
Because best buy is freaking awful.
More to your point though, I'd be interested to see some stats on total number of laptop+nettop+ultrabook-apple units moved by the two (the grouping is because those categories blur the lines far too much, and apple sales don't matter in this case). There's a very good chance best buy outsells amazon on laptops, but I wouldn't be surprised if the figures are pretty close
What are they waiting for?
A list of exactly what is being violated?
To put it in perspective, consider the SCO-Linux lawsuits. While this isn't exactly the same, it is the same sort of hurdle.
Company A: Your stuff violates some of our stuff! Pay us or else! ...
Company B: What stuff?
Company A: A lot of stuff! 68 things enumerated over thousands of places to be precise. Now pay us or else!
Company B: Um, what stuff is it exactly?
Company A: Oh, you'll find out in court. Consider yourself served!
And for those that agree (settle out of court), it seems common for a "deal" to be offered, with one of the rules being that they don't divulge that information.
Maybe that's not the case here, but I'm betting that's at least part of it (the other part being bogus or weak patents). There may even be a couple valid ones, but as far as I know, that hasn't been fully identified.
Picking up tiny SSD is not a solution for notebook or for the desktop - you need more ports, more money, more energy etc
A great many laptops have mini PCIe slots. I have a Dell Inspiron 1720 (core 2 duo from May 2008) that has THREE of these (two of which are open; one holds a wifi card which I recently upgraded). You could pop an mSATA in either of the other two. BIOS might not see it correctly (one of the slots in the 1720 is labeled to support mSATA, and docs say the others won't work, but I don't believe it... I had to put the new wifi in the mSATA slot because my card was half length and that's the only place I could get antanna's to stretch to - wifi catcher switch doesn't work now, but linux sees and uses the new card just fine).
For the desktop... I don't know what you're talking about. You can fit two 2.5" drives in a 3.5" drive slot (or in the external 3.5" spot), or more in a 5.25" slot, or use a PCIx card solution, etc.
More energy? Really? The SSHD's have a flash drive and spinning platters in them. Having those separate *might* use a little more power, but that just depends on what drives you buy. The difference will be negligible at best.
I don't trust any site whose product descriptions don't match the product specifications.
Ex: http://www.aliexpress.com/item/2013-New-4rd-Generation-16GB-Black/891966448.html
"2013 New 4rd Generation- 16GB - Black"
Tablet Data Capacity: 32GB
Same thing for: http://www.aliexpress.com/item/2013-New-Iconia-Tab-A210-10g16u-10-1-Inch-16GB-Tablet-Gray/891858062.html .... title says 16GB; iconia a210 normally ships with 16GB ... Highly doubt the 3G, 4G, external 3G ... iconia a210 ships with an NVIDIA Tegra 3 ... Maybe this is right, but the A210's I've found online have only 1GB
2013 New Iconia Tab A210-10g16u 10.1-Inch 16GB Tablet (Gray)
Tablet Data Capacity: 32GB
Network Communiction: Built-in 3G,Bluetooth,Wifi,4G LTE,External 3G
Processor Manufacture: Samsung
Memory Capacity: 2GB
Unless someone real (not just an A/C, and someone with a normal comment history) can attest to this place, I'll be avoiding it completely, an recommending others to do the same. Looks way too shady.
This is the real problem:
Much of this is because he is so busy and just wants to get everything out the door.
The real solution is to hire a junior developer to help out, either to take some of the workload off the senior developer, or to simply make the corrections instead of the OP.
AFAICT, this guy IS the junion developer. Three possible options:
1. quit
2. get him to change (unlikely), or get him fired (if he's senior and pumping out lots of stuff that looks iike it works, this is unlikely)
3. speak to him + management; see if he/they see benefit in a maintainable product; if so, propose that you be his bitch / code filter, and your job becomes quality control (you fix his stuff; improve/add automatic code checkers; clean up the source; etc etc). If they see the benefit in that over you smashing on the keyboard to make more of a mess and add a couple features, then great (assuming you want that job). Else, see #1 and #2.
If OP doesn't like that, then the best way to lead is by example. If you just spew out standards and stuff, or just clean up his mess, he's not going to change. On your parts of the project, where you add some new files (not a modification to existing files), do it the right way and add testing and make those tests be required to pass before a code commit is allowed. That way, if he borks something you added to badly, then he won't be able to check it in. It'll make for a bit of a war for a while, but someone will win or break eventually :-)
Should have just ranked them by speed. Slowest to fastest: ... I'd like to know where Intel's rank in that line up. I know they're slower than the closed source ones, but what about the open source ones (and what cards?)?
Nvidia with open source drivers
AMD with open source drivers
AMD with closed source drivers
Nvidia with closed source drivers
Yes, Intel sells CPUs with GPUs integrated. That doesn't change the fact that their core business is selling CPUs not GPUs. Or please link to where I can buy a discrete GPU from Intel. Nvidia's core business, on the other hand, is their GPUs.
Good point... personally, I'd like to purchase discrete intel video cards. I don't need core i7 performance, don't want the power consumption, and definitely don't want the price. AMD FX is fine by me. However, Intel's recent video performance is good enough, and completely open and well supported on Linux. I'd enjoy that combo. Currently, I've got a AMD FX box with nvidia card, and an AMD A-series box using the their integrated graphics. The Nvidia is much easier to work with (using proprietary drivers), and I've had a bunch of silly issues with the AMD graphics (tried both drivers).
I'm not sure why Intel doesn't release a discrete card, except maybe that they want to keep Nvidia alive and let them fight that battle.
Oh, I remember how the faux page curl seemed so novel for 5 minutes on Flash sites.
Doesn't matter... that was WAY before Flash worked "on a cell phone".
I would consider it theft by taking
How is it theft to take what the machine is handing you**, but it's not theft when the machine gladly takes your money?
I realize there's the whole "intent" thing, and knowing it's more than you're supposed to get, but you're dealing with a machine that, conversely, lacks that ability to understand in the other direction. If I accidentally push the $10 button instead of the $1 button, it'll gladly take my $10 and there's not shit that can be done about it. If it accidentally gives me 10x's the money it's supposed to.... turn about is fair play as far as I'm concerned.
What, am I supposed to believe that all those bells and chimes and lights and scantly clad waitresses and free drinks are there to help me make better decisions? They're there to entice people into forking over more money than they intended to part with. Two guys found a way to get one model of machines to fork over more than they wanted to, and it really wasn't *that* much (no where near what the casinos take in). So what.
** the payouts were so big, that people actually handed him the money. They could have stopped right there.
Every time I've ever played those damn machines, they take all my money. I've managed a win here or there, but never came out on top, and whatever budget I set for myself was exhausted in short order. We're told that's how they're supposed to work; that the odds are in the houses favor; that walking away with more money than you start with is supposed to be a rare thing. These two guys pull that off, and they walk away with around $500k or so (each?), and they're the ones getting arrested? WTF?!? The casino's openly say they're just going to keep fleecing everyone, and we're all fine with that, but two guys get a couple bucks (by just pushing the buttons on the front that they're allowed to push) and they're evil?
The casinos should just fix the bug, or enable the work around, and move on. The first guy has played $12 MILLION in video poker prior to this. The house has made plenty to cover this relatively minor payout. Let these two guys be happy and tell all their friends how much they won, and put them on banners and billboards saying "look at these big winners!!!", and they'll get plenty more people flocking to the machines and losing it all.
I don't think they broken any of the mentioned laws, and the CFAA should be neutered, but none of that even matters. The casinos are already ahead of the game cash-wise; they've ID'd the bug; it's simple to disable the bug-causing feature; there's probably an update that fixes it; they're legally allowed to bar these guys from ever coming back (but why would they!?!!? he spent $12million on video poker alone before ever even discovering this bug); and last but not least, SHOULDN'T THEY BE SUING IGN (maker of the game)!?!?!
This is what they were able to build. Rev 2. (probably when they get to mass producing it) will have better battery life
Not only this, but the article is simply flamebait:
But for all the hype surrounding another category of wearable devices — connected eyewear — early tests with Google Glass suggest battery performance may be absolutely awful.
I would hardly call 5 hours of continuous use "absolutely awful". Personally, I'd put that in the "could be better" category. If I'm sitting at my computer, I'm probably going to take them off; If I'm playing frisbee or basketball etc, I'm taking them off; if I'm just sitting around the house, I'm taking them off; etc etc. I think 5 hours a day is more than I'd use them anyway... but all those times when you take them off, they could also be charging.
The article gets much worse though:
If the user captures longer videos and uses Glass a bit more regularly, Stevens believes the headset will only last “a couple of hours” before the battery dies.
A device that only lasts two hours between charges is not the future of tech.
That wasn't a test. That was what he thought would happen, and he didn't try it. I doubt that claim is accurate. The screen and communications channels are running the whole time anyway, and that's probably sucking the majority of the power. Recording while doing so probably won't make much of a difference... but I'm just postulating too. Maybe he should have actually tested it, since he has one!
And then they follow it up with a statement, as if that was actually fact. That's rotten.
I've looked at battery powered pico projectors over the years (never got one though), and most claimed around 2 hours life. That's *nearly* enough, but I want to be sure I'll be able to finish a movie on one. This, IMO, is similar. If it gets 2.5 hours or more, I think that's pretty good for constant recording or playing (besides, where are you storing 2.5+ hours of HD video?), and this isn't meant to replace video cameras. I don't know what they're thinking.
A complaint about batterly life from someone that probably wouldn't wear this in public for more than 10 minutes... yeah, I don't care what he has to say. (I'm not saying I'd wear it all that much either... but I'm not going to berate the battery life of something I wouldn't use anyway)
With an average lens or video camera, which means that it doesn't apply to super telephoto lenses and it doesn't apply to cameras that are concealed.
This thing is hardly conceled. Certainly no more so than a cell phone camera, which is quite common. Heck, I'd argue that a cell phone camera is even more conceled, since it's primarily a phone, and there's lot of other stuff you can do on a phone, and it's not always obvious you're pointing its camera at someone; whereas, with Google Glass, there's this chunky thing attached to a weird partial glasses frame on someones face - it doesn't just blend in, and it doesn't look like ordinary glasses in any way.
Here I was thinking that they should have built it into more normal looking glasses (like the mp3 player glasses that have been around for years, but a better style), but the wierd look might work to their advantage legally.
If it made no sense, I'm not sure how it could have lasted so long.
Really? "so long"? Your sense of time is bizarre! This is a very rapidly evolving sector (software), and it's still very young in comparison to just about anything else out there. That's in addition to the fact that your point is utterly wrong, your argument is a logical fallacy, you quote something that was not said, and you even include one example that does work.
If we're just talking about games (your example), the software (the game engine) could be open sourced, and the pay-per-copy model can still be used for the content (art, music, graphics, maps, etc). Games may be the easiest type of software to transition to open source.
The GP's example of the ideal situation is more flexible than a strict pay-before-work. When one is paid doesn't even matter. The point is there would be an agreement of some sort (contract, employment agreement, etc) where one is paid for the act of doing something, and when done, that something (the resulting software) can be used by the person that paid for it. In a great many cases, resale of that result isn't the goal; pay-per-copy would never have applied. In cases where pay-per-copy currently applies, the pay to the developer still works the same way in virtual all situations. In those cases, there's a large enough end user population to use other methods to allow the business to run (paid support, paid implementations/services, micropayments, sell the app and open source the software, hosted services, ads, dual licensing, etc). Besides, no one said "pay-per-copy makes no sense"... you made up that straw man.
And how can they prove his guilt if he's hiding out like a common criminal?
Damn straight! He needs to be present to be bound, rocks attached, and thrown in a river to see if he's guilty and floats!
I'm sure Giles Corey wished he had a place to hide instead of having his innocence proven-to-death (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giles_Corey).
Why though?
Assuming the GP's figure is close to accurate, "99% of the world's gold is sitting in a vault", it explains itself.
The rarity of gold IN CIRCULATION combined with its physical properties (ie. it's desirable for many applications) sets its base price, and the higher the rarity (assuming there's still enough out there to be useful), the higher that price. So, stockpile a lot of it and lock it away, and what remains grows in value.
This is actually the same thing that happens to bitcoin, and is a big part of why they claim it self regulates... As bitcoin is removed from the market (bought and moved into savings), the price of bitcoin on the exchange goes up. Supposedly, the market would still work with just one bitcoin on the exchange. If it got to that point, adding one bitcoin from savings back into the exchange would earn someone a healthy chunk of money, but the price of bitcoin would drop in half instantly. This is supposed to mean that having a big pile of it doesn't help you, because if you have 100 bitcoin, it's not worth 100 x's the current price as each one put into the exchange reduces the price of the rest of bitcoin on the exchange. IMO, that doesn't make sense, and would make speculation increase (buy one, hope price goes up really high, sell high, wait for it to drop again as others try to do the same, repeat). This paragraph probably has a LOT of details wrong, misworded, etc, but the main point is still there... bitcoin chose it's block creation algorithm such that it approximates the rate at which commodities like gold are mined. (see : https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Controlled_Currency_Supply).
Anyway, if all the gold was released into circulation, the price per ounce would certainly drop, but that doesn't mean it wouldn't be just as useful as currency. It's value is based highly on what is in circulation, and that total value (amount_in_circulation * price) would probably be about the same. That's what bitcoin is counting on, and it plays a very similar rarity game.
According to the state you don't have a right to drive a vehicle. BTW, if a license is required to do something it's not a right.
Wrong on at least two counts.
You need a license to drive a vehicle ON PUBLIC ROADS. That may seem like a trivial detail to you, but it makes all the difference when your framing this as a rights issue. Plenty of farms, for example, have underage (under legal driving age) people, and adults, driving vehicles all over their farm without a license.
As others have pointed out, a licensing requirement does not mean something is not a right.
There's really no excuse for NYC or other US metro areas to not have better internet service even if they do end up having a smaller population in the metro area.
There are plenty of excuses, and even some valid ones. Population density just isn't one of them. IMO, the age of the city and its infrastructure plays the biggest role. Keep in mind, Tokyo was hit very very hard during World War II (1944). So, even though Tokyo has been around for centuries, an awful lot of it is new.
You're still missing the point entirely.
What protects your cert? Is it just filesystem permissions? Is it encrypted with a password that must be entered when the webserver restarts, or encrypted and the webserver config (or helper script) holds a password, or not encrypted?
The cert authenticates who you are. So if someone gets a copy of your private cert, they can pretend to be you.
To keep the cert secure, it should be encrypted. A key server serves to provide decryption (or a key to decrypt) the cert in a secure manor. It gets more complicated than that, but that's the general idea. If you're just trusting some "secure middle man" (which isn't the only concern), how do you think they keep all that information secure?
This has nothing to do with the HTTPS encryption on the wire, nor with the DH key exchange, nor with certificate chain validation up to Verisign/Comodo/etc. (well, their appliance may assist in one or more of those things, but that's not the complex bit).
Look up "PCI DSS Encrption Key Management" for more info.
I second the biking... would love them on that, even with just simple maps.
I could see that thing being awesome for golf... they already do GPS through smart phones.. if it can tell you how far away an object is in your field of vision, pretty darn spiffy.. show you a trail where your ball went, display your swing trajectory in your field of view for analysis... lots of cool things. Plus golfers will spend that kind of money.
That'd be cool, but it's not going to be possible (AFAICT) with the first version. The resolution (720p) and framerate of the camera won't be able to see the ball, especially with your head swinging around as well. It has monocular vision, so it's going to be piss poor at determining object distances. I don't see this happening.
don't know about you but if i'm going to buy a home i want to see it.
You've got it all backwards. Do you even know that the topic is Google Glass?
If you were looking at a home, you'd go there, and put on the glasses, and walk around and do your tour. The glasses could provide you with additional info on the house, and could also record your experience so the agent had a peak at what you were doing (likes/dislikes/etc).
I'm not saying it's a good idea, but it's not the non-existent idea you were debating :-)
Turning on https on a web server doesn't require a security expert.
So, you have a cert, and a webserver. Is that cert protected by a password?
- if no, then anyone that gains access to the server and/or cert can break all transmissions. For example, do you have a backup of the cert? Is it floating around in an email somewhere? How many people can get access to it? etc.
- if yes, then where is that password? How do you go about protecting the password that protects the cert? You'll run into some of the same problems in protecting the password. That's one of the main problems that a key server solves (I'm pretty sure that's the main goal, or at least one of the primary goals, of the StronKey CryptoCabinet, but I haven't looked into it specifically enough yet)
Any time you encrypt anything, you need some sort of key, and you must protect it somehow, and still make it available for use in said encryption/decryption.
Maybe you don't *need* that level of security, but some do, and it's the hard part (er... well... one of the hard parts)
The year is 2013. The developed world, and much of the developing world, is now comfortable with computers and can very easily understand and work with something like... oh, I don't know... a password manager. I've seen 8 year olds and 80 year olds pick up KeePass in nothing flat.
If you go with the password manager route (or just memorize them), every site will SEE the username and password for itself. This means that every site must implement all the password and account management things securely (ex. password reset). This includes system security as well.
If one uses single sign-on, the participating sites never see the password (in most implementations).
So, the upshot is that you don't end up with a bunch of bit players trying to re-invent the wheel badly, each being an authentication breech waiting to happen. Add to that the fact that many users re-use the same password at multiple sites, and the situation looks worse.
The downside is that, if someone gets your single sign-on account information, then they get access to all your sites. The same is true if they get your keepass db and password, but that's not a service that runs somewhere else.
I think one of the most confusing bits about single sign-on is the end user perception on how its sold... the "you only need to remember one account" is often the first selling point that is pushed. That's really just a side effect. The "no site ever has access to your password" is the bigger selling point, but it's too confusing to explain how that works, and people don't really care.
It's trivial to remove the "authenticate once, single sign-on, and when you visit another participating site you don't have to login again" part. For example, see section 2.1.1 of the Jasig CAS protocol (http://www.jasig.org/cas/protocol),
renew [OPTIONAL] - if this parameter is set, single sign-on will be bypassed. In this case, CAS will require the client to present credentials regardless of the existence of a single sign-on session with CAS.
When that is set, the CAS IdP does not automatically redirect you back to the original site. It will not re-use the established SSO session. It will prompt for login again. This could easily be set on the users profile, or globally on the IdP. You'd then still have the benefit that each participating site would never see your credentials, but it would prevent sites from automatically logging you in. You could also use this to enter different credentials (ie. more than one account on the CAS IdP), so you could still have multiple accounts, and the sites would be none the wiser.
All that said, I'm personally comfortable with maintaining a separate username and password for every service I use, and still prefer it. Besides, the scary part isn't that some site could get the password I use for them, but that some site could be storing a bunch of information about me and I don't want that to get leaked (like vudu's recent thing, where they got hacked and leaked the last 4 digits of users credit cards - the first 4 - 8 digits identify the type of card, the bank, and the branch office where the account was opened, so they're not that difficult to guess; the last 4 are the most unique part of your CC#, so it sucks that it's common practice to print that on all receipts and store it everywhere).
As I pointed out above, in fact that isn't even optional. It MUST be manipulating the data in order to even operate within the limits of USB.
Can you put this to rest yet? Here...
https://forums.leapmotion.com/showthread.php?1091-Started-Linux-Hacking-Effort&p=9208&viewfull=1#post9208
https://forums.leapmotion.com/showthread.php?1091-Started-Linux-Hacking-Effort&p=9210&viewfull=1#post9210
https://forums.leapmotion.com/showthread.php?1091-Started-Linux-Hacking-Effort&p=9284&viewfull=1#post9284
First link explains how a capture was done (which was fairly simple).
The second link has frames captured from the device.
The third has a graphic to clear up how the frames are interlaced.
In short, it outputs pixel interlaced 640x480 frames (every other byte of image data goes to left then right frame; grab 1280 bytes, and you have one row of image from each left and right camera after minor post processing).
Your left with the frames from both cameras, and the magic happens on the PC in software (and/or drivers, depending on where you draw the line for what constitutes a driver).
Back to the point, there's no reason not to open source the driver - the little bit that talks to the device and gets data back. Looks like that part is going to be fairly easy to do anyway, so open drivers will likely show up soon after official release.