Wikipedia became word of God or something?
on
UVB-76 Explained
·
· Score: 1
I really think you should re-consider using Wikipedia as "the only trustable source", especially regarding deep/dark stuff like that. Imagine that, it is a culture which have people living like a normal guy with family for decades until "activated".
These "signal stations" is something really deep and all agreed that these things are in use by elite spies, simply unbreakable "one time pad" crypto using military and high level CIA etc. guys.
They also go/up down, seemingly random. If something is brought back to life in a particular area, people have reason to get a bit paranoid.
All my devices support h264 on hardware and I don't have a single bit tendency to upgrade a working device just because some ideological organization has unrealistic plans to go patent free without doing any real life/hard work.
I believe Google really means something when they release a "WebM" player, accelerated/asm one to all the competitor platforms to Android. Just like I started to take MS Silverlight a bit serious when they released the first mobile beta on Symbian, their competitor.
"We have done it, now use it" doesn't really work for an advanced video codec. I am not living in Google's dream world where everyone moves to android/gmail/youtube and has 14 pictures of them to let Google spy on them.
Unless Google has some kind of undocumented power to plant "webm decoder chip" to billions of devices.
TV&Video&Movie territory is way more different than "web". They should have consulted or at least visited a professional/high end studio to see what kind of workflow they are dealing with.
"I am giving free, die you evil codec" doesn't really work. It is not mail.
h264 and mpeg SP are in virtually every satellite box/smart phone and even dumb phone (e.g. Nokia S40, SE non smart stuff). It must be well over billion installed territory.
What kind of plan exist to have these devices support WebM? Will Google do it? For example, they simply ignored a 32bit/64bit processor architecture from their -once- partner while releasing Chrome. Yes, I talk about PowerPC. It isn't really 80286 running MS-DOS you know.
Lets also talk about TV World where, you _must have_ something, a huge plus to have something replaced by newer one. It is not "trendy developers abandoning older devices" area. TV business has happily run with PAL/NTSC standard/variants for decades until "HDTV" came along. It was the day when MPEG/H264 showed millions/billions of dollars in savings thanks to great compression without noticeable loss of quality.
H264 is still at "growing" phase and as some companies/academics/organizations spent billions of dollars while creating it, sorry gmail users, they will want to go even at least.
I know one company who are in professional video business does use x264 (donated too) and ffmpeg (again, donated) but they keep licensing h264 commercially to stay on "lawyer happy" legal grounds. Are they big fan of open source? No but ffmpeg and x264 scales amazingly well in their server farm and can be scripted.
BTW; I really think different about WebM and H264 (patents) and it is completely unrealistic to "give up h264" but I got my lesson here a while back. So, not going into it. I just say, I keep wondering why people treat to Google like FSF or even BSD which they aren't.
i7 may be damn good with way more higher technology and support but really, its price is dumb. Really dumb. One can't really justify paying that price (don't forget decent MB) for a desktop processor. Lets not forget the integrated ATI graphics , even lowest end can show Intel GMA as a joke. At least they got hardware T&L in 2010 for God's sake.
I have serious problems paying $1000 for a processor and I own a Quad G5 PowerPC from Apple. Now if it makes me feel like that, imagine the rest. Also one day, one non dumb company will manage to make users really use "cloud" computing all with grid technology with privacy concerns kinda resolved, that time netbook owners may really laugh at $1000 CPU owners for a reason.
If Apple didn't produce hardware and didn't make living with hardware upgrades, they could be the ones to solve this stupid problem with an elite and yet practical solution. In fact, every OS X comes with it enabled... XGrid...
So, black hats who dares to play around with Google giant's browser can't find a CC number to give to them.
Sure... Man they could be using CC number printed papers as toilet paper.
For example, this team/guy who coded this marvellous piece of evil software who controls 5 million computers via unbreakable, declared WONTFIX by security elite, zombie army will have hard time finding a $5 CC. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conficker
If you have time, read all about it. "Get users credit card number" validation scheme is over. Completely over.
It seems that moderator modded me as troll will donate thousands of dollars to open source/free extension developers or pay to Google on behalf of them.
You can actually see what Google trust to.These "volks".
What would happen if this was some anonymous project hosted at sourceforge instead? Some really untraditional open source software, looking to problem in different (very different!) angle has been successful. While "old school fans" hate what it has become, I can give Azureus. Think about it and remember the product it was racing against, compare both. The "simple application" it was racing against has become so problematic so they ended up acquiring something that was supposed to compete against them, as alternative.
Perhaps Google fools themselves thinking everyone buys their "don't be evil" slogan and trust them. Why would I trust some side project of an advertising giant? You know, if you are a Chrome extension developer, prepare your $5, just at front page today. Now, if some miracle happens and actual open source developers say "oh really? here is your account revocation", will Chrome extension project called "too innovative"?
It is charged from extensions. Man, really does apple.com or google.com has some very advanced background mind programming graphic so some people becomes rather like cult members?
If there is, they better enhance the contrast, I keep flipping out every day without my "program".
It shows what you can expect from their so-called free and open source browser. In fact, everytime they do it, they prove GNU/FSF "nitpicking" about the FOSS and plain "open source".
I don't want to make anyone feel guilty or cheap but I personally know some open source developers who can't even afford a $30 external disk and development stops until they get some kind of donation. Yes, popular too.
You talk about "ipod touch" upgrade prices where fanatics gathered and memorized entire SEC guidelines to answer. E.g. why not charge $1 instead of $10 if you have been required to do so.
Tip: Paypal does same for same purpose and charges $1, to put it back in 24 hours. Does Google do it? Or they can't afford? (!)
It seems easy to assume this was a warning shot pointed at him. I don't blame a particular organization, these things are far more complex than you may think.
The graphics update (actually,driver update) is only available for 10.6.x running Macs. For example, not 10.5.8 running Intels.
10.6 relation to 10.5 is more like Vista vs. 7, both are operating systems coded as "enhancing" and "plugging into" the previous one. So, you can use 99% of Vista drivers on Windows 7 etc.
Here comes the issue: As you know, you don't go to Nvidia to get updated OS X drivers. They don't exist. It is Apple Inc. who provides drivers. I thought they were acting like sh*t to PPC users but they also seem to abandon any Intel user who dares to stay "stable", on previous major version with all updates. It is just like Nvidia rejecting to support Windows Vista or 1 previous major version Linux kernel.
Just recently, "the evil MS" released "platform update" to Vista, down to "Vista basic" which enables it to have a common framework for GPU processing. Nvidia (and probably ATI) released drivers supporting that standard and magically even $50 "Vista Starter" had GPU processing. Of course, as long as someone codes an application using that standard.
Don't forget Flash plugin on Windows supports GPU decoding down to XP because operating system allows it and it also has driver updates.
Worst part is, I am typing these on an Apple computer. Apple Inc. one more manages to make me give MS as example of how things should be done.
As far as I know, there is DRM in Steam's offerings. So, while Linux users begging for DRM looks funny a bit, it may get really bad later especially for their (good) image and the possibility of some "DVD Jon" scandal.
As I said back in 1990s, all these guys does know "gamer linux guy" can and will dual boot to Windows to play his game. So, why would they bother? Dual boot is the worst thing happened to Linux and it keeps happening. Effect on OS X scene was not that disastrous as I was afraid of, people didn't become dual booting windows users because of boot camp and companies do know that you can't really make a guy to dual boot to windows that easy.
One really wonders if the only practical purpose of 64bit for these people's vision is only whining to Adobe for 64bit Flash?
I mean, with the exceptional speed gains for networks, 64bit pure operating systems, GPU manufacturers basically hitting what can be achieved in 2D, TB levels of storage on laptops... All they can come up is freaking extra registers and whether their "adobe flash player" comes in 64bit or not. Just the specs of "Display Port" and its future roadmap should enlighten people but they choose to be impressed in 1080P displays, which we were selling as Barco dealers back in 1990s.
10 years earlier, Kaminsky reported it very polite and decently and obviously he didn't release an exploit. Did it change anything other than being ignored by MS?
Even Apple as far as I know (and don't like) would stay open at weekend if someone found an issue like that on OS X, until they release a fix. MS doesn't even respond to well known technical news sites run by reporters, not some no name bloggers.
According to The Register article, it is 200 now and counting. In fact, 40-200 etc. happens because downloading/testing software takes time, not anything else:)
Issue has so big evil potential that, they are afraid to tell the exact details. You can be sure black hats are all over the private forums, google and irc to figure out what this thing could exactly be.
What pisses me off is, it was later "tweeted" to be a 10 year old, reported bug, in official way (Bugtraq) and 3-5 kernels and explorers later, there was nothing done against it.
See the reporter? That is one of the most respected white hat hackers, especially in Windows land. It is not some teenager misunderstanding something and reporting as flaw.
This sounded a bit like the DNS issue. So big that it better not be detailed until top popular apps (and better, explorer itself) gets patched.
There is no way to legally or after recent decision, practically add extra security to iphone.
On Symbian, Windows Mobile and I heard, Android, there are antiviruses, full packages which includes application firewall and a decent ip firewall.
So, you can tell owners of above devices `if you are that paranoid, you shouldn`t buy a smart phone. Anyway, head to Kaspersky or F-Secure and cough some money`
With App store policy, Apple also made it impossible to add additional security layer to device.
You better tell the "video" you talk about is not some TV rip, badly transcoded "monkey dancing" video, it is $1M+ production backed by $10B companies and their lawyers/producers.
Once the movie/video enters final phase, it is the producer and his backers who decides what to do with it. They have no problems with "patents" or "non standard", clever ones just care about MPEG standards (after learning it hard way) and documented workflows backed by big companies who actually has support staff which can make to studio in 1 hour in case something goes wrong.
For example, there is no "politically correct" way of enabling anti-rip (in fact,making it harder) technology in HTML5. Imagine the slashdot if Apple/Mozilla/Google/MS implemented it.
Slashdot Mirror
I really think you should re-consider using Wikipedia as "the only trustable source", especially regarding deep/dark stuff like that. Imagine that, it is a culture which have people living like a normal guy with family for decades until "activated".
These "signal stations" is something really deep and all agreed that these things are in use by elite spies, simply unbreakable "one time pad" crypto using military and high level CIA etc. guys.
They also go/up down, seemingly random. If something is brought back to life in a particular area, people have reason to get a bit paranoid.
All my devices support h264 on hardware and I don't have a single bit tendency to upgrade a working device just because some ideological organization has unrealistic plans to go patent free without doing any real life/hard work.
I believe Google really means something when they release a "WebM" player, accelerated/asm one to all the competitor platforms to Android. Just like I started to take MS Silverlight a bit serious when they released the first mobile beta on Symbian, their competitor.
"We have done it, now use it" doesn't really work for an advanced video codec. I am not living in Google's dream world where everyone moves to android/gmail/youtube and has 14 pictures of them to let Google spy on them.
Unless Google has some kind of undocumented power to plant "webm decoder chip" to billions of devices.
TV&Video&Movie territory is way more different than "web". They should have consulted or at least visited a professional/high end studio to see what kind of workflow they are dealing with.
"I am giving free, die you evil codec" doesn't really work. It is not mail.
h264 and mpeg SP are in virtually every satellite box/smart phone and even dumb phone (e.g. Nokia S40, SE non smart stuff). It must be well over billion installed territory.
What kind of plan exist to have these devices support WebM? Will Google do it? For example, they simply ignored a 32bit/64bit processor architecture from their -once- partner while releasing Chrome. Yes, I talk about PowerPC. It isn't really 80286 running MS-DOS you know.
Lets also talk about TV World where, you _must have_ something, a huge plus to have something replaced by newer one. It is not "trendy developers abandoning older devices" area. TV business has happily run with PAL/NTSC standard/variants for decades until "HDTV" came along. It was the day when MPEG/H264 showed millions/billions of dollars in savings thanks to great compression without noticeable loss of quality.
H264 is still at "growing" phase and as some companies/academics/organizations spent billions of dollars while creating it, sorry gmail users, they will want to go even at least.
I know one company who are in professional video business does use x264 (donated too) and ffmpeg (again, donated) but they keep licensing h264 commercially to stay on "lawyer happy" legal grounds. Are they big fan of open source? No but ffmpeg and x264 scales amazingly well in their server farm and can be scripted.
BTW; I really think different about WebM and H264 (patents) and it is completely unrealistic to "give up h264" but I got my lesson here a while back. So, not going into it. I just say, I keep wondering why people treat to Google like FSF or even BSD which they aren't.
i7 may be damn good with way more higher technology and support but really, its price is dumb. Really dumb. One can't really justify paying that price (don't forget decent MB) for a desktop processor. Lets not forget the integrated ATI graphics , even lowest end can show Intel GMA as a joke. At least they got hardware T&L in 2010 for God's sake.
I have serious problems paying $1000 for a processor and I own a Quad G5 PowerPC from Apple. Now if it makes me feel like that, imagine the rest. Also one day, one non dumb company will manage to make users really use "cloud" computing all with grid technology with privacy concerns kinda resolved, that time netbook owners may really laugh at $1000 CPU owners for a reason.
If Apple didn't produce hardware and didn't make living with hardware upgrades, they could be the ones to solve this stupid problem with an elite and yet practical solution. In fact, every OS X comes with it enabled... XGrid...
Really, why do they invest millions of dollars to make zombie armies? To spam? It is so over.
In fact, they can even SWIFT the money, via stolen bank account. SWIFT/Bank is way more secure. (here comes $10 idea for Google)
Likely 99% of extensions, especially open source ones aren't business, they are favor to greater community.
So, black hats who dares to play around with Google giant's browser can't find a CC number to give to them.
Sure... Man they could be using CC number printed papers as toilet paper.
For example, this team/guy who coded this marvellous piece of evil software who controls 5 million computers via unbreakable, declared WONTFIX by security elite, zombie army will have hard time finding a $5 CC.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conficker
If you have time, read all about it. "Get users credit card number" validation scheme is over. Completely over.
It seems that moderator modded me as troll will donate thousands of dollars to open source/free extension developers or pay to Google on behalf of them.
You can actually see what Google trust to.These "volks".
What would happen if this was some anonymous project hosted at sourceforge instead? Some really untraditional open source software, looking to problem in different (very different!) angle has been successful. While "old school fans" hate what it has become, I can give Azureus. Think about it and remember the product it was racing against, compare both. The "simple application" it was racing against has become so problematic so they ended up acquiring something that was supposed to compete against them, as alternative.
Perhaps Google fools themselves thinking everyone buys their "don't be evil" slogan and trust them. Why would I trust some side project of an advertising giant? You know, if you are a Chrome extension developer, prepare your $5, just at front page today. Now, if some miracle happens and actual open source developers say "oh really? here is your account revocation", will Chrome extension project called "too innovative"?
It is charged from extensions. Man, really does apple.com or google.com has some very advanced background mind programming graphic so some people becomes rather like cult members?
If there is, they better enhance the contrast, I keep flipping out every day without my "program".
It shows what you can expect from their so-called free and open source browser. In fact, everytime they do it, they prove GNU/FSF "nitpicking" about the FOSS and plain "open source".
I don't want to make anyone feel guilty or cheap but I personally know some open source developers who can't even afford a $30 external disk and development stops until they get some kind of donation. Yes, popular too.
You talk about "ipod touch" upgrade prices where fanatics gathered and memorized entire SEC guidelines to answer. E.g. why not charge $1 instead of $10 if you have been required to do so.
Tip: Paypal does same for same purpose and charges $1, to put it back in 24 hours. Does Google do it? Or they can't afford? (!)
It seems easy to assume this was a warning shot pointed at him. I don't blame a particular organization, these things are far more complex than you may think.
The graphics update (actually,driver update) is only available for 10.6.x running Macs. For example, not 10.5.8 running Intels.
10.6 relation to 10.5 is more like Vista vs. 7, both are operating systems coded as "enhancing" and "plugging into" the previous one. So, you can use 99% of Vista drivers on Windows 7 etc.
Here comes the issue: As you know, you don't go to Nvidia to get updated OS X drivers. They don't exist. It is Apple Inc. who provides drivers. I thought they were acting like sh*t to PPC users but they also seem to abandon any Intel user who dares to stay "stable", on previous major version with all updates. It is just like Nvidia rejecting to support Windows Vista or 1 previous major version Linux kernel.
Just recently, "the evil MS" released "platform update" to Vista, down to "Vista basic" which enables it to have a common framework for GPU processing. Nvidia (and probably ATI) released drivers supporting that standard and magically even $50 "Vista Starter" had GPU processing. Of course, as long as someone codes an application using that standard.
Don't forget Flash plugin on Windows supports GPU decoding down to XP because operating system allows it and it also has driver updates.
Worst part is, I am typing these on an Apple computer. Apple Inc. one more manages to make me give MS as example of how things should be done.
As far as I know, there is DRM in Steam's offerings. So, while Linux users begging for DRM looks funny a bit, it may get really bad later especially for their (good) image and the possibility of some "DVD Jon" scandal.
As I said back in 1990s, all these guys does know "gamer linux guy" can and will dual boot to Windows to play his game. So, why would they bother? Dual boot is the worst thing happened to Linux and it keeps happening. Effect on OS X scene was not that disastrous as I was afraid of, people didn't become dual booting windows users because of boot camp and companies do know that you can't really make a guy to dual boot to windows that easy.
One really wonders if the only practical purpose of 64bit for these people's vision is only whining to Adobe for 64bit Flash?
I mean, with the exceptional speed gains for networks, 64bit pure operating systems, GPU manufacturers basically hitting what can be achieved in 2D, TB levels of storage on laptops... All they can come up is freaking extra registers and whether their "adobe flash player" comes in 64bit or not. Just the specs of "Display Port" and its future roadmap should enlighten people but they choose to be impressed in 1080P displays, which we were selling as Barco dealers back in 1990s.
Look this way, http://www.securityfocus.com/bid/1699/discuss
10 years earlier, Kaminsky reported it very polite and decently and obviously he didn't release an exploit. Did it change anything other than being ignored by MS?
Even Apple as far as I know (and don't like) would stay open at weekend if someone found an issue like that on OS X, until they release a fix. MS doesn't even respond to well known technical news sites run by reporters, not some no name bloggers.
One day, something will hit Windows real bad that it will effect anyone, Linux users or even Z/OS using banks.
That junk is running on 95% of machines connected to the Internet. If I wasn't lazy, I would give a far more impressive real number, e.g. billions.
I remember not being to do anything meaningful on the Internet because of some Windows worm while I was using OS X on Apple G5.
According to The Register article, it is 200 now and counting. In fact, 40-200 etc. happens because downloading/testing software takes time, not anything else :)
Twitter is loved by people who has something to say, in short and hates the idea of "blogging" or facebook.
You can be sure that the actual security issue will be released in traditional .txt form.
I don't have a twitter account.
Issue has so big evil potential that, they are afraid to tell the exact details. You can be sure black hats are all over the private forums, google and irc to figure out what this thing could exactly be.
What pisses me off is, it was later "tweeted" to be a 10 year old, reported bug, in official way (Bugtraq) and 3-5 kernels and explorers later, there was nothing done against it.
http://www.securityfocus.com/bid/1699/discuss
See the reporter? That is one of the most respected white hat hackers, especially in Windows land. It is not some teenager misunderstanding something and reporting as flaw.
This sounded a bit like the DNS issue. So big that it better not be detailed until top popular apps (and better, explorer itself) gets patched.
There is no way to legally or after recent decision, practically add extra security to iphone.
On Symbian, Windows Mobile and I heard, Android, there are antiviruses, full packages which includes application firewall and a decent ip firewall.
So, you can tell owners of above devices `if you are that paranoid, you shouldn`t buy a smart phone. Anyway, head to Kaspersky or F-Secure and cough some money`
With App store policy, Apple also made it impossible to add additional security layer to device.
You better tell the "video" you talk about is not some TV rip, badly transcoded "monkey dancing" video, it is $1M+ production backed by $10B companies and their lawyers/producers.
Once the movie/video enters final phase, it is the producer and his backers who decides what to do with it. They have no problems with "patents" or "non standard", clever ones just care about MPEG standards (after learning it hard way) and documented workflows backed by big companies who actually has support staff which can make to studio in 1 hour in case something goes wrong.
For example, there is no "politically correct" way of enabling anti-rip (in fact,making it harder) technology in HTML5. Imagine the slashdot if Apple/Mozilla/Google/MS implemented it.