They've pissed people off, some who may simply download out of spite now
I'm installing bit torrent now. If it weren't for this article I wouldn't have used bit torrent yet (or maybe ever). Thank you HBO for helping to promote bit torrent.
He raised the possibility that the community could "fork" version 2 of the software--that is, start developing a divergent version of Nessus from the one officially supported by Tenable.
It would be interesting if this happens. It would certainly make the developers statement in need of a second look (the statement above was not the developers statement): The developer also expressed disappointment over the lack of community participation in developing the software, despite its open-source license.
So, if it does fork and the open source fork gets a lot of development that would mean of two things. Either the developer is understating the community involvement or he wasn't that good at drumming up interest in community involvement.
Why do people like to use Flash (on http://www.grandchallenge.org/) to communicate textual information? I find that highly annoying and difficult to use.
if you set every Windows PC in the world to poll Windows Update at the same rate that worms try to find vulnerable hosts, you'd make the Slashdot effect look like a single ping packet...
Wow, that's a cool idea! Can some hacker please get on this right away?
Simple. Just don't include any spreading code in the payload; send the worm from your own machines.
How is this any different then setting up a server responsible for pushing out patches? I thought the idea of a worm was to spread from computer to computer. If it stops after one hop, how is it a worm?
Isn't the problem with most worms the network traffic it causes by spreading, not the payload? I'm not sure how they plan on keeping something that's designed to spread from spreading too quickly.
OK, for them to sell traffic they first have to get users. How do they plan on doing this? They sell it as being this great thing that will make browsing a more "social" experience and then they're going to make web sites pay to be a part of it? Count me out.
I was thinking more along the lines of plugging it into your existing TV or taking it with you to a friends house and plugging it into their television. I totally agree that trying to watch a movie on the tiny screen would suck. I just hope Apple has the foresight to supply appropriate outputs (RCA, S-Video, Component, DVI, etc.) to make this possible.
That's awesome. No, it was not intentional but I could lie and claim it was on a subconscious level. Do you want to partner on pitching this idea to Apple?
No offense, but I sort of feel like that could be done without a video iPod.
You're absolutely right, us geeks know that the video iPod would be unnecessary in this scenario - that we could just play the video from our computer. However, think about the average consumer. They need something to play their videos on right? I mean, they've always had something to play their videos on - a VCR, a DVD player, etc. Just because it's unnecessary doesn't mean the consumer won't think it's necessary. It helps bridge the gap and pull people along until the average person realizes, "Hey, why I can't I just do this on my computer?" People just don't think that way yet (except slashdotters).
Umm, what are you getting at? I don't mean to speak for someone else but I will attempt to answer what he is "getting at". Have you ever used wireless streaming audio? It's pretty cool, you just pop open your laptop/desktop and stream your music wirelessly to your stereo system. No wires, your computer can be anywhere in the house, your stereo can be anywhere in the house. It would be pretty cool if you could do the same thing with video. You load up iTunes (or whatever it will be called) on your computer and stream your video wirelessly to your television. There are solutions to this but they are not cheap and easily accessible to the average consumer.
I own an Airport. It would be cool if they'd built video streaming into it like you can with audio. It's probably because of bandwidth and buffering memory required. Also, the video processing requirements would make the device too expensive for people who really just want the streaming audio. The Airport has a decent size buffer for audio. If you force quit the streaming computer the Airport keeps playing for several seconds (maybe 5 or 10).
Re:Let the PostgreSql vs MySQL Debate Commence
on
Sun Eyes PostgreSQL
·
· Score: 1
you spelt sucks wrong
LOL, I think we know where you stand in the flame war, don't we?
Video is not portable in any successful manner. Cell phone providers can't get people interested; portable mini-LCD DVD players spend more time on family room shelves than in-use.
I have a feeling this isn't about selling iPods. This is about proving that people will be interested in downloading video content through services like iTunes. What if it can hook up to your TV and act like a DVD player? What if iTunes starts having lots of good video content? This is just small part of a much bigger picture.
Re:Let the PostgreSql vs MySQL Debate Commence
on
Sun Eyes PostgreSQL
·
· Score: 1
I have a feeling we'll see a couple of instances of MySQL vs PostgreSql flamewars starting in this story.
Anybody can guess where I stand in this debate (hint: look at my slashdot username).
We need to be enumerating the good programs and not the other way around.
Enumerating both good and bad programs is probably a good idea. It's usually pretty obvious if something is malware. How do we say for sure that something is a "good" program though? Who decides if it's a "good" program? How long does it take my software to get listed as a "good" program? Do I have to pay a licensing fee? Is it a big expense to get it certified as "good" because I have to pay for all sorts of independent testing? I'm sure the big software players would like this because it would make it more difficult for independent (and possibly innovative) developers to get there stuff out there. It would add a lot of friction to software innovation.
Is this going to be Windows-centric, or are they reporting on ALL malware, regardless of platform?
From the article it sounds like it's an issue of malware outbreaks in general without regard to platform. Since it's simply about having a common name for malware, there's no reason why it should be platform specific.
Seems like kind of a simple concept. "Let's make sure we're all using the same name." But I guess being able to identify a virus by name is a kind of important step in finding a fix for it.
Yes you would, because most people have MP3 files mixed into their playlists along with their AAC tracks from iTMS.
I said, "If you were using the iPod to play those songs..." The keyword in that sentence was "if" - I didn't say "If you were using the iPod to play those songs and other songs you got from somewhere else...".
Yes, but the original discussion was about the use of songs downloaded from the iTunes Music Store. If you were using the iPod to play those songs, you wouldn't be using it as an "MP3 Player" technically speaking.
Not as in beer, and not as in speech. Or, perhaps, the player itself is free as in beer, but that hardly constitues any kind of advantage over mp3s.
TFA said that you were locked into using the iTunes software or an iPod if you bought music from the iTunes Music Store. The iTunes software is free (as in beer). My point is that I don't mind being "stuck" using the iTunes software. It has nothing to do with an "advantage over mp3s". In fact, iTunes and iPod can play MP3s.
Basically, if you download a track from iTunes, it will only play on a computer in iTunes (and on an iPod), not on mp3 or Windows Media
iTunes is free so that doesn't really bother me much. I can just download my music and start playing it on my computer. I don't own an MP3 player, but if I were going to buy one it would be an iPod. That's not because I'd have to buy an iPod to play my music, it's because I think the iPod is the best MP3 (I know not technical MP3) player out there. Just my opinion.
Slashdot Mirror
They've pissed people off, some who may simply download out of spite now
I'm installing bit torrent now. If it weren't for this article I wouldn't have used bit torrent yet (or maybe ever). Thank you HBO for helping to promote bit torrent.
He raised the possibility that the community could "fork" version 2 of the software--that is, start developing a divergent version of Nessus from the one officially supported by Tenable.
It would be interesting if this happens. It would certainly make the developers statement in need of a second look (the statement above was not the developers statement):
The developer also expressed disappointment over the lack of community participation in developing the software, despite its open-source license.
So, if it does fork and the open source fork gets a lot of development that would mean of two things. Either the developer is understating the community involvement or he wasn't that good at drumming up interest in community involvement.
Why do people like to use Flash (on http://www.grandchallenge.org/) to communicate textual information? I find that highly annoying and difficult to use.
if you set every Windows PC in the world to poll Windows Update at the same rate that worms try to find vulnerable hosts, you'd make the Slashdot effect look like a single ping packet...
Wow, that's a cool idea! Can some hacker please get on this right away?
Simple. Just don't include any spreading code in the payload; send the worm from your own machines.
How is this any different then setting up a server responsible for pushing out patches? I thought the idea of a worm was to spread from computer to computer. If it stops after one hop, how is it a worm?
Isn't the problem with most worms the network traffic it causes by spreading, not the payload? I'm not sure how they plan on keeping something that's designed to spread from spreading too quickly.
OK, for them to sell traffic they first have to get users. How do they plan on doing this? They sell it as being this great thing that will make browsing a more "social" experience and then they're going to make web sites pay to be a part of it? Count me out.
An iPod screen isn't going to be good for movies.
I was thinking more along the lines of plugging it into your existing TV or taking it with you to a friends house and plugging it into their television. I totally agree that trying to watch a movie on the tiny screen would suck. I just hope Apple has the foresight to supply appropriate outputs (RCA, S-Video, Component, DVI, etc.) to make this possible.
I would like to express our sincere gratitude to all Deskzilla users who responded with comments, ideas and bug reports.
Wow, that's recursive. Submitting bugs on a bug tracking system. What if there are bugs in the bug tracking system? Wait, I'm going in circles...
That's awesome. No, it was not intentional but I could lie and claim it was on a subconscious level. Do you want to partner on pitching this idea to Apple?
No offense, but I sort of feel like that could be done without a video iPod.
You're absolutely right, us geeks know that the video iPod would be unnecessary in this scenario - that we could just play the video from our computer. However, think about the average consumer. They need something to play their videos on right? I mean, they've always had something to play their videos on - a VCR, a DVD player, etc. Just because it's unnecessary doesn't mean the consumer won't think it's necessary. It helps bridge the gap and pull people along until the average person realizes, "Hey, why I can't I just do this on my computer?" People just don't think that way yet (except slashdotters).
Seriously, what are you getting at here?
Umm, what are you getting at? I don't mean to speak for someone else but I will attempt to answer what he is "getting at". Have you ever used wireless streaming audio? It's pretty cool, you just pop open your laptop/desktop and stream your music wirelessly to your stereo system. No wires, your computer can be anywhere in the house, your stereo can be anywhere in the house. It would be pretty cool if you could do the same thing with video. You load up iTunes (or whatever it will be called) on your computer and stream your video wirelessly to your television. There are solutions to this but they are not cheap and easily accessible to the average consumer.
What would be cooler if it used Airport wireless.
I own an Airport. It would be cool if they'd built video streaming into it like you can with audio. It's probably because of bandwidth and buffering memory required. Also, the video processing requirements would make the device too expensive for people who really just want the streaming audio. The Airport has a decent size buffer for audio. If you force quit the streaming computer the Airport keeps playing for several seconds (maybe 5 or 10).
you spelt sucks wrong
LOL, I think we know where you stand in the flame war, don't we?
Video is not portable in any successful manner. Cell phone providers can't get people interested; portable mini-LCD DVD players spend more time on family room shelves than in-use.
I have a feeling this isn't about selling iPods. This is about proving that people will be interested in downloading video content through services like iTunes. What if it can hook up to your TV and act like a DVD player? What if iTunes starts having lots of good video content? This is just small part of a much bigger picture.
I have a feeling we'll see a couple of instances of MySQL vs PostgreSql flamewars starting in this story.
Anybody can guess where I stand in this debate (hint: look at my slashdot username).
the sad part is that several well-paid government employees spent 6 months developing this "solution".
Most of the "development" was probably talking to industry execs and getting them all to agree. It's all about politics.
We need to be enumerating the good programs and not the other way around.
Enumerating both good and bad programs is probably a good idea. It's usually pretty obvious if something is malware. How do we say for sure that something is a "good" program though? Who decides if it's a "good" program? How long does it take my software to get listed as a "good" program? Do I have to pay a licensing fee? Is it a big expense to get it certified as "good" because I have to pay for all sorts of independent testing? I'm sure the big software players would like this because it would make it more difficult for independent (and possibly innovative) developers to get there stuff out there. It would add a lot of friction to software innovation.
what about those it does bother?
Well then they can use something else and I'll keep using iTunes. Sound fair?
Is this going to be Windows-centric, or are they reporting on ALL malware, regardless of platform?
From the article it sounds like it's an issue of malware outbreaks in general without regard to platform. Since it's simply about having a common name for malware, there's no reason why it should be platform specific.
Seems like kind of a simple concept. "Let's make sure we're all using the same name." But I guess being able to identify a virus by name is a kind of important step in finding a fix for it.
Yes you would, because most people have MP3 files mixed into their playlists along with their AAC tracks from iTMS.
I said, "If you were using the iPod to play those songs..." The keyword in that sentence was "if" - I didn't say "If you were using the iPod to play those songs and other songs you got from somewhere else...".
Yes, but the original discussion was about the use of songs downloaded from the iTunes Music Store. If you were using the iPod to play those songs, you wouldn't be using it as an "MP3 Player" technically speaking.
Not as in beer, and not as in speech. Or, perhaps, the player itself is free as in beer, but that hardly constitues any kind of advantage over mp3s.
TFA said that you were locked into using the iTunes software or an iPod if you bought music from the iTunes Music Store. The iTunes software is free (as in beer). My point is that I don't mind being "stuck" using the iTunes software. It has nothing to do with an "advantage over mp3s". In fact, iTunes and iPod can play MP3s.
Basically, if you download a track from iTunes, it will only play on a computer in iTunes (and on an iPod), not on mp3 or Windows Media
iTunes is free so that doesn't really bother me much. I can just download my music and start playing it on my computer. I don't own an MP3 player, but if I were going to buy one it would be an iPod. That's not because I'd have to buy an iPod to play my music, it's because I think the iPod is the best MP3 (I know not technical MP3) player out there. Just my opinion.