In current age of internet, DOS attack is a very, very serious crime. If you mess with companies making legal money from content, at least here, it doubles the crime penalty. Anything advertising supported/login required is more protected than the free content. I am telling since they messed with Revision3 which gets money from companies like Microsoft as advertisers.
"Oh well, we don't live in a country where citizens come first."
Find a good live, online stock ticker and watch if people STOPPED acting like sheep and decided to boycott ANY company who has any kind of connection with mediasentry.
It would be an amusing 1 or 2 day watch (until share removed from listing because of minimum).
I don't think there is anything left for Media Sentry to do as "online crime" even to American companies like Revision3. The proof is there too, in millions of machines (that leak).
It is way beyond law stuff, a real good political news investigator should document their ties with some powers. I don't think you can dare to DOS a legal file sharing and professional site if you don't trust to some powers.
Does anyone remember in how a good way Carl Sagan explained the problem if there are more or less than 3 dimensions exist?
I remember he was explaining the imaginary 2d creatures not being able to see 3d creatures and so on. It was on a TV documentary. Sorry if I remember it all wrong. I was like 13;)
I see a flash scientology , rather very big ad at bottom of article and in "videos", there are Google Adsense ads mentioning scientology youtube channel.
It could be related to people who sees those ads (must be scientific terms used triggering them) and think the site is Scientology supported. It could be possible but it could be the adsense only too.
BTW Google Adsense advertising Scientology Youtube channel is not really a good, pretty sight. What next? Doubleclick ads too?
and sadly, people still pirate $10 cell phone games, software which takes huge amount of work compared to Windows or even OS X. Even more sad? They are running them on $500 smart phones. So there comes DRM, accepted evil being such a de facto standard that I have 3 separate DRM frameworks on my smart phone running Symbian.
Once you say an obvious fact like that, you must be suggesting something to prevent it. Blame of hardware manufacturers to support piracy means they aren't doing enough to prevent it. How can a hardware manufacturer prevent it? Think about it.
I am also sick of piracy especially for making that junk desktop (Windows) some sort of de-facto standard. Everyone knows all of those some hundred thousand games can be easily pirated so they choose Windows at first hand along with that no name gaming PC.
"Silverlight's being "a 'FLOP' on OS X" would be all the more reason for Microsoft not to bother with OS X, as Microsoft can be sure that Photosynth would FLOP on OSX as well. Other than MacBu's sfuff, there's no reason for Microsoft to waste time catering to Mac bigots that refuse to run the software due to irrational hatred of all things MS)."
I installed the version 1.0 beta of Silverlight to my PPC mac while it was available. MS is creating Mac bigots, not the other way. People ignoring it because of "vendor: Microsoft" or "What the hell MS understand from photography?" turned out to be right.
If you look at Apple history, you see they made stuff like Apple TV and even digital camera before anyone could imagine it. I think they were too early to ship Lynx or Jaguar and their usual "so bite me" attitude to Developers paid back.
I remember 65xx ASM/C developer friends trading "super secret" like documents between them. The big secret? POKEY chip! Yes, they had to find some secret hacker documents to program the sound chip of machine (800XL). Atari also almost sued their turkish distributor for printing the "inside" of 800XL to cover of official Atari Mag. They took great time to explain them that it will prevent users from opening up the machine stupidly for curiosity so less service calls etc. required. Remember, it is Atari Inc. of USA talking to their Turkish distributor. You can imagine how they acted to the professional developer scene of that time.
Atari and Amiga were true PAL/NTSC output machines (that is why still used at some TVs) and there were a good deal of analogue signal loss "anti aliasing" involved along with game developers doing very clever tricks.
As minimum screen is 1024x768 now and there is not a single pixel loss, you can't expect to see same quality of graphics you remember,
I bet you miss the feeling of the amaze when someone comes up with a new demo, game which doesn't remotely ensemble anything you have seen before. It is missing from current computers.
For example I remember watching Alternate Reality (The City) intro of Atari 800XL completely amazed. Not a big surprise that same guy ended up coding the actual B2 Bomber software when his distributor didn't pay for his work.
Lets say unimaginable happens and Windows keeps this monopoly 100 years from now, people could wonder "So there was OS X, Linux etc. invented all built on idea of Unix, why are we using Windows 2100?". Some would say "Oh don't believe those conspiracy theorists, Sjobs and Linus were mad people, their ideas could never be implemented in real life."
Sad thing is, people would believe it.
Imagine somehow you create a perfect Windows/OS X replacement which is ages ahead of anything you can imagine in terms of technology and simplicity to use. Would US Govt. want their great exports to vanish?
They sue Apple in all occasions even for ridiculous things like Advertisement shows iPhone faster but they don't sue Intel and USB gang for openly lying about speed. Why?
Everyone who used USB2 knows that 480Mbps is almost never achieved in real life and even Firewire 400 (not 800) delivers better speeds and yet nobody sues them.
As USB was designed by Intel, a CPU manufacturer, I don't see that horrible mistake as some co-incidence.
The designer of USB comes from Atari 8bit ages, he should know about performance way of doing things.
Right now, I can't run any P2P software on a Mac Mini 1.42 Ghz because poor thing dies because of kernel_task overhead (as much as 40%!) of USB2 wireless adapter. I thank Intel for it! Same mini does 40MB/sec while reading from its external firewire 400 drive with 2% CPU load.
If you are happy with Windows way of things, there is a special edition of XP, "XP Fundamentals for Legacy PCs" which would be my choice on current hardware too. It is XP minus legacy "dial up networking" type of junk or needless services.
It must be the choice for "virtual windows" people too.
So Firefox will prove one more time that it is not suitable for enterprise unless they post some tips for admins how to disable that nag. As they are the ones insisting on not packaging an official.MSI or.PKG installer, I don't see it happening.
I am in Video business and the biggest issue would be the codecs as they are generally optimised ASM code.
As VC1 and whatever codec they use can be played back on OS X/PPC and even encoded fine, they don't have any excuse rather than being either a evil company or pathetic.
The most CPU intensive codec, H264 works fine even on Mac Mini 1.42 Ghz unless you try mad things like 1080p.
Decoding Video , if you know how to use CPU enhancements such as Altivec (e.g. Apple h264decoder.altivec) is not a big deal especially for the market Silverlight aims to takeover. I don't think there will be 1080p/Dolby Digital videos at Youtube anytime soon;)
If a Quad G5 is just 30% slower than Quad Xeon (first gen), it is not obsolete. It is just "not shipped anymore".
For example, an OS and hardware combination which isn't Y2K compliant unless massive changes in software which is beyond anyones budget, it is considered "obsolete".
You can view the real obsolete stuff at Flash Player download page at Adobe, you will see some versions are stuck in 7.x 6.x or so on.
As Silverlight was created at first hand to punish users who doesn't use Windows, it sounds perfectly normal to me as PPC user. I believe if that junk takes off (thanks to bribery deals to NBC etc), in a convenient time, they will start lagging new versions to those OS X/Intel users too. All Mac scene knows it so they don't really give a heck to Silverlight at all.
It is just MS tries too hard to prove they are the old, evil MS.
If it ships Intel only, it is a Windows application packaged in OS X app so it is still not a OS X program.
Just like Silverlight. I am counting months to hear about first buffer overflow bug on that junk, fortunately Intel mac owners aren't impressed with their flash wannabe too so it is not so popular.
Asus EEE which has Linux pre-installed is more expensive than generic laptop running Windows.
The return of official Silverlight for Linux (and 64bit) could be: "See, we are really out to race with Adobe, we aren't just trying to kill Flash because it has multiplatform support which bugs us".
Of course, you would expect it from a sane company, not a failing monopoly which really doesn't know what to do with their money.
Snow Leopard is said to be a "bare bones" "performance" and in fact "cloud computing" release of Leopard, that is why it still has "Leopard" name. The possibility of things and the change of concept, (if it works) may make me buy an Intel Mac. At least a Mini.
Apple supports even G4 on Leopard release. What misses is (as usual), scientific and technical explanation of why Snow Leopard won't be released on PPC to stop these trolls buried in some "Developer note" page. Of course perhaps Apple doesn't really care that much about "your hardware is obsolete" trolls as we do;)
A possible issue with 10.6 (if released for PPC) could be the rumoured removal of Carbon. Now, if Carbon goes away, will we tell developers to work on PPC/Cocoa port of their already working fine software? It wouldn't be a good thing for PPC users at all. E.g. will MS work on PPC/Cocoa MS office while not being able to manage to ship a stinky plugin? It won't work at all. So perhaps it is a favour to PPC users?
Slashdot Mirror
In current age of internet, DOS attack is a very, very serious crime. If you mess with companies making legal money from content, at least here, it doubles the crime penalty. Anything advertising supported/login required is more protected than the free content. I am telling since they messed with Revision3 which gets money from companies like Microsoft as advertisers.
"Oh well, we don't live in a country where citizens come first."
Find a good live, online stock ticker and watch if people STOPPED acting like sheep and decided to boycott ANY company who has any kind of connection with mediasentry.
It would be an amusing 1 or 2 day watch (until share removed from listing because of minimum).
I don't think there is anything left for Media Sentry to do as "online crime" even to American companies like Revision3. The proof is there too, in millions of machines (that leak).
It is way beyond law stuff, a real good political news investigator should document their ties with some powers. I don't think you can dare to DOS a legal file sharing and professional site if you don't trust to some powers.
Does anyone remember in how a good way Carl Sagan explained the problem if there are more or less than 3 dimensions exist?
I remember he was explaining the imaginary 2d creatures not being able to see 3d creatures and so on. It was on a TV documentary. Sorry if I remember it all wrong. I was like 13 ;)
It must be an episode of "Cosmos" http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0755981/filmoseries#tt0081846
I see a flash scientology , rather very big ad at bottom of article and in "videos", there are Google Adsense ads mentioning scientology youtube channel.
It could be related to people who sees those ads (must be scientific terms used triggering them) and think the site is Scientology supported. It could be possible but it could be the adsense only too.
BTW Google Adsense advertising Scientology Youtube channel is not really a good, pretty sight. What next? Doubleclick ads too?
and sadly, people still pirate $10 cell phone games, software which takes huge amount of work compared to Windows or even OS X. Even more sad? They are running them on $500 smart phones. So there comes DRM, accepted evil being such a de facto standard that I have 3 separate DRM frameworks on my smart phone running Symbian.
Once you say an obvious fact like that, you must be suggesting something to prevent it. Blame of hardware manufacturers to support piracy means they aren't doing enough to prevent it. How can a hardware manufacturer prevent it? Think about it.
I am also sick of piracy especially for making that junk desktop (Windows) some sort of de-facto standard. Everyone knows all of those some hundred thousand games can be easily pirated so they choose Windows at first hand along with that no name gaming PC.
"Silverlight's being "a 'FLOP' on OS X" would be all the more reason for Microsoft not to bother with OS X, as Microsoft can be sure that Photosynth would FLOP on OSX as well. Other than MacBu's sfuff, there's no reason for Microsoft to waste time catering to Mac bigots that refuse to run the software due to irrational hatred of all things MS)."
I installed the version 1.0 beta of Silverlight to my PPC mac while it was available. MS is creating Mac bigots, not the other way. People ignoring it because of "vendor: Microsoft" or "What the hell MS understand from photography?" turned out to be right.
If you look at Apple history, you see they made stuff like Apple TV and even digital camera before anyone could imagine it. I think they were too early to ship Lynx or Jaguar and their usual "so bite me" attitude to Developers paid back.
I remember 65xx ASM/C developer friends trading "super secret" like documents between them. The big secret? POKEY chip! Yes, they had to find some secret hacker documents to program the sound chip of machine (800XL). Atari also almost sued their turkish distributor for printing the "inside" of 800XL to cover of official Atari Mag. They took great time to explain them that it will prevent users from opening up the machine stupidly for curiosity so less service calls etc. required. Remember, it is Atari Inc. of USA talking to their Turkish distributor. You can imagine how they acted to the professional developer scene of that time.
Atari and Amiga were true PAL/NTSC output machines (that is why still used at some TVs) and there were a good deal of analogue signal loss "anti aliasing" involved along with game developers doing very clever tricks.
As minimum screen is 1024x768 now and there is not a single pixel loss, you can't expect to see same quality of graphics you remember,
I bet you miss the feeling of the amaze when someone comes up with a new demo, game which doesn't remotely ensemble anything you have seen before. It is missing from current computers.
For example I remember watching Alternate Reality (The City) intro of Atari 800XL completely amazed. Not a big surprise that same guy ended up coding the actual B2 Bomber software when his distributor didn't pay for his work.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alternate_Reality_(computer_game)
Lets say unimaginable happens and Windows keeps this monopoly 100 years from now, people could wonder "So there was OS X, Linux etc. invented all built on idea of Unix, why are we using Windows 2100?". Some would say "Oh don't believe those conspiracy theorists, Sjobs and Linus were mad people, their ideas could never be implemented in real life."
Sad thing is, people would believe it.
Imagine somehow you create a perfect Windows/OS X replacement which is ages ahead of anything you can imagine in terms of technology and simplicity to use. Would US Govt. want their great exports to vanish?
They sue Apple in all occasions even for ridiculous things like Advertisement shows iPhone faster but they don't sue Intel and USB gang for openly lying about speed. Why?
Everyone who used USB2 knows that 480Mbps is almost never achieved in real life and even Firewire 400 (not 800) delivers better speeds and yet nobody sues them.
As USB was designed by Intel, a CPU manufacturer, I don't see that horrible mistake as some co-incidence.
The designer of USB comes from Atari 8bit ages, he should know about performance way of doing things.
Right now, I can't run any P2P software on a Mac Mini 1.42 Ghz because poor thing dies because of kernel_task overhead (as much as 40%!) of USB2 wireless adapter. I thank Intel for it! Same mini does 40MB/sec while reading from its external firewire 400 drive with 2% CPU load.
Is it the same way that USB2 is 480mbps which nobody saw in their life? As they reference the fake 480mbps, I am afraid so.
If you are happy with Windows way of things, there is a special edition of XP, "XP Fundamentals for Legacy PCs" which would be my choice on current hardware too. It is XP minus legacy "dial up networking" type of junk or needless services.
It must be the choice for "virtual windows" people too.
Your attitude still lives on at Firefox scene eh?
Stuff like: "It uses too much RAM" "buy RAM you cheap bastard", "it doesn't run on my OS", "upgrade it and your hardware".
Why don't they install Opera 9.5 which perfectly works on their OS instead?
http://www.opera.com/support/search/view/386/
It even supports Windows 95. In contrast to Firefox for OS X, it also supports OS X 10.2.
In fact, even that unfixable pile of crap, IE 6 works on Win 98. By telling users to get a new hardware, you are driving them to IE too.
So Firefox will prove one more time that it is not suitable for enterprise unless they post some tips for admins how to disable that nag. As they are the ones insisting on not packaging an official .MSI or .PKG installer, I don't see it happening.
MS Hotmail still suggests us, OS X users to "upgrade to IE 6" to have full functionality my friend.
I am in Video business and the biggest issue would be the codecs as they are generally optimised ASM code.
As VC1 and whatever codec they use can be played back on OS X/PPC and even encoded fine, they don't have any excuse rather than being either a evil company or pathetic.
The most CPU intensive codec, H264 works fine even on Mac Mini 1.42 Ghz unless you try mad things like 1080p.
Decoding Video , if you know how to use CPU enhancements such as Altivec (e.g. Apple h264decoder.altivec) is not a big deal especially for the market Silverlight aims to takeover. I don't think there will be 1080p/Dolby Digital videos at Youtube anytime soon ;)
If a Quad G5 is just 30% slower than Quad Xeon (first gen), it is not obsolete. It is just "not shipped anymore".
For example, an OS and hardware combination which isn't Y2K compliant unless massive changes in software which is beyond anyones budget, it is considered "obsolete".
You can view the real obsolete stuff at Flash Player download page at Adobe, you will see some versions are stuck in 7.x 6.x or so on.
As Silverlight was created at first hand to punish users who doesn't use Windows, it sounds perfectly normal to me as PPC user. I believe if that junk takes off (thanks to bribery deals to NBC etc), in a convenient time, they will start lagging new versions to those OS X/Intel users too. All Mac scene knows it so they don't really give a heck to Silverlight at all.
It is just MS tries too hard to prove they are the old, evil MS.
If it ships Intel only, it is a Windows application packaged in OS X app so it is still not a OS X program.
Just like Silverlight. I am counting months to hear about first buffer overflow bug on that junk, fortunately Intel mac owners aren't impressed with their flash wannabe too so it is not so popular.
They are promising "Video support for MSN" messenger for 3 years or so now ;)
Their "soon" could be Pluton time or something.
A third party, open source application has video support for MSN (aMSN I think) and people joke to them about it, they aren't even effected.
Asus EEE which has Linux pre-installed is more expensive than generic laptop running Windows.
The return of official Silverlight for Linux (and 64bit) could be: "See, we are really out to race with Adobe, we aren't just trying to kill Flash because it has multiplatform support which bugs us".
Of course, you would expect it from a sane company, not a failing monopoly which really doesn't know what to do with their money.
Snow Leopard is said to be a "bare bones" "performance" and in fact "cloud computing" release of Leopard, that is why it still has "Leopard" name. The possibility of things and the change of concept, (if it works) may make me buy an Intel Mac. At least a Mini.
Apple supports even G4 on Leopard release. What misses is (as usual), scientific and technical explanation of why Snow Leopard won't be released on PPC to stop these trolls buried in some "Developer note" page. Of course perhaps Apple doesn't really care that much about "your hardware is obsolete" trolls as we do ;)
A possible issue with 10.6 (if released for PPC) could be the rumoured removal of Carbon. Now, if Carbon goes away, will we tell developers to work on PPC/Cocoa port of their already working fine software? It wouldn't be a good thing for PPC users at all. E.g. will MS work on PPC/Cocoa MS office while not being able to manage to ship a stinky plugin? It won't work at all. So perhaps it is a favour to PPC users?