After millennia of people asking themselves "Who am I?" "What am I doing in this world?" over and over we now have the technology to answer that question.
... is based on shoving it down the consumers throat will ultimately fail.
If I see an add which annoys me, I will try pretty hard to avoid that company in the future.
So companies should not try to figure out "How do we FORCE people to see our adds", but "What can we do that people WANT to see our adds".
THAT is the big shift in marketing that could save the advertising business.
Also, since this idea is based on the DVD player having an connection to the internet, it would be pretty simple to set up the local network in a way that redirects all download attempts to a local server which just gives out 0-second spots or something.
Hmmmm... Maybe thath why at the end of the monthth there is never any money lefth.
I meant seventies / eighties and got mixed up it seems.... eehh.. I mean seemth.
I really liked some of the BBC programs that were broadcast here in Germany in the 70th and 80th.
I would gladly pay for them, If I could get them in some way, but the whole internet distribution seems to be planned UK only, at least it was that way when I investigated a few weeks back.
So to which politics-critter should I write to get that rain thing taken care of? It's responsible for most of the rust on my car.
Funny how many of this stories surface, which basically just state the same "everything that is not encrypted on the network can be seen pretty easily" over and over again.
Which basically not only states the primary INTEND of the software itself has to be to commit a crime, but also..
".. Erforderlich ist, dass der Täter eine eigene oder fremde Computerstraftat in Aussicht genommen hat,".. would be necessary that you as the programmer would have to have know of the specific hacking attempt that was planned with your software.
She specifically says that use of such software to test security or for educational purposes is NOT punishable.
I sure hope they clean up the text in the article itself that way, though.
They all state that the PRIMARY INTENTION of the programmer / distributor / user has to be to hack someone.
( Danach sind nur Computerprogramme betroffen, die in erster Linie dafür ausgelegt oder hergestellt werden, um damit Straftaten nach 202a, 202b StGB zu begehen. )
A few have also said, that they possibly will have to act quickly and clarify that in the text if the wording is mis-interpreted in courts.
202c Vorbereiten des Ausspähens und Abfangens von Daten -> Preparation to spy out or intercept data.
(1) Wer eine Straftat nach 202a oder 202b vorbereitet, indem er -> Anyone preparing a criminal offense according to 202a or 202b by...
1. Passwörter oder sonstige Sicherungscodes, die den Zugang zu Daten ( 202a Abs. 2) ermöglichen, oder
-> collecting passwords or similar security codes, which allow access to data ( 202a / 2), or
2. Computerprogramme, deren Zweck die Begehung einer solchen Tat ist, herstellt, sich oder einem anderen verschafft, verkauft, einem anderen überlässt, verbreitet oder sonst zugänglich macht, wird mit Freiheitsstrafe bis zu einem Jahr oder mit Geldstrafe bestraft.
-> produe, supply or sell Computer Software with aims at perpetrating such offenses, is punishable by one one year in prison or a fine.
Where 202a/b basically define the crime "getting at data you are not supposed to get at"
I think the real problem is the first sentence "Anyone preparing a criminal offense according to 202a or 202b by..." which creates a circular dependency. I really don't understand even from the German text if that means that 202c 1/2 only comes into effect if you really are preparing to actually hack someone specific (202a/b) of if it's the other way around.
I don't give that law a lot of time before it is changed. (At least I hope so)
They don't bother to keep us interested with things that really ARE interesting, but with mildly interesting cliffhanger here, cliffhanger there, to get us watch the thing next week.
I'm fed up with it to the point that I don't even bother watching shows on the first run anymore. Invasion, Jericho, etc.... string people along with cliffhanger after cliffhanger until the entire series stops one day with a cliffhanger that is never resolved.
Of course when the whole think reaches syndication one day nobody bothers to watch it, since they know there is no real ending anyway. The shows with in themselves conclusive episodes might not be such a quick starter than the cliffhanger ones, but I think I will think in 10 years or* so "Oh, there is Firefly again. Might as well catch a few Episodes, they were good"
*If there still is such thing as broadcast TV then.
Well, if the brain behind the source gets hit by a bus I think it's bad for commercially supported software, too.
So what if ReiserFS get's not developed further? There's still dozens of other file system to choose from.
We use both commercial and free open source software in our company, and support or bugfixes are not generally faster/slower better/worse from one or the other. The only thing you can't to when you don't have commercial support is pin the blame on someone else when it isn't working.;-)
I have had very good personal experiences with Oracle support. Microsoft often has a "Yeah, we now it doesn't work in your case, but we can't be bothered to fix it" approach. Guess our 2000 client licenses plus a few dozen different servers don't get us much priority.
And take a case like PeopleSoft for example a commercial company can get bought up, and the support for your product dumped sooner or later without anyone actually getting hit by a bus.
Just take XP / Vista. If you want to continue using XP you are out of luck, because it's going to get de-supported pretty soon. ( And we are still using Windows 2000 mostly, because some special software from a commercial vendor doesn't even work on XP )
I think when an open source product has enough people using it, there will always be someone to pick the pieces up when the original writer leaves the project for whatever reason.
Yeah, but what is lacking somewhat is a standard way of passing data from that scripting languages from and too applications.
I have for instance written a little perl script which automates my video encoding / dvd burning.
For getting the information for the source file I use "mplayer -identify" and get a list of information in a PARAMETER=VALUE format, which I must parse. Then I have to construct the command line parameters for all the scripts in another format. Then I have to write the configuration file for dvdauthor in XML. Then I have to write the configuration file for some of the subtitle processors in yet another format.
Which might not be a problem for me and you, but it would be nicer to have a somewhat standard format to pass data in the pipes.
Works fine, until someday on some platform someone manages to create a user with a space in the name.
It's an interesting idea to separate the data a program uses form the text in/out. Objects might not be the best way, and the implementation from MS might suck, but it's basically a worthy idea in my opinion.
Does that mean the 40 gig file I can pipe to a Unix command is passes as an object in PowerShell, and maybe loaded into memory first?;-)
Other than that it might prove really useful. I have often looked for some way to simplify the piping in unix without having to play with sed/grep/awk to much and hope the command output doesn't change in future versions.
Microsoft has of course the advantage that they can define the object format in-house.
Maybe one should have a look at such a format for oss software (<cheesy_buwwzord> maybe an xml schema</cheesy_buzzword>), and creating additional objout/objin pipes in addition to the stdin/stdout ones.
On the other hand, if you go to Slashdot and tell people that Oracle was in Delphi originally, you can really confuse people.;-)
Re:Before anyone says anything about free speech
on
EU Bans Sock-Puppet Blogs
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
Ah, so according to that it would be "Free Speech",....
... If I claim to be an FBI Agent, back that claim up with an forged badge, go to your local police station and ask the friendly people there to lock you up for a few days?
Still only about 90-95% efficiency, compared to the ~99.8% of transformers once they reach the >= 50 MVA ballpark.
Then again, I just figured :
You could still generate AC at the power plant, transform it *UP*, convert to DC, distribute in a DC network, and do the *DOWN* conversion with DC-DC converters at the endpoints.
Well, mechanical and electrically BLDCs motors are AC motors, with electronics included so that the AC that is needed to run the motor is generated from the input DC.
Wether the AC is sinusoid or rectangular doesn't matter much for most cases.
I guess once the electronics have reached a level of improvement where the energy loss in (and the cost of) them becomes negligible compared to that of the motor it won't matter much wether the electronics themself are fed by AC or DC.
But while DC-DC transformers that transform voltage DOWN have been available for some years now, I haven't seen a good approach to get voltage UP.
Even at the Solid-State High Voltage, DC Power Distribution & Control project at CERN http://accelconf.web.cern.ch/accelconf/p99/PAPERS/ THDR5.PDF they still use AC and an AC Transformator to get the High voltage they then rectify into DC. But I have been out of the loop of that for a few years, anything new there?
Yep, big DC motors are not very good or efficient.
Another problem with DC motors are the brushes, which have to be replaced regularly on high-power ones.
For that reason, one of my jobs a few years ago was to figure out a way to replace hundreds of high-power DC motors in production lines (which were used because before modern electronics to change the frequency of AC the speed regulation of DC motors was simpler) with AC ones. They consumed about 75% of the energy the DC ones had to use, and were about half the size.
Slashdot Mirror
Yep. Even Microsoft knows that PowerPoint is no good.
After millennia of people asking themselves "Who am I?" "What am I doing in this world?" over and over we now have the technology to answer that question.
... is based on shoving it down the consumers throat will ultimately fail.
If I see an add which annoys me, I will try pretty hard to avoid that company in the future.
So companies should not try to figure out "How do we FORCE people to see our adds", but "What can we do that people WANT to see our adds".
THAT is the big shift in marketing that could save the advertising business.
Also, since this idea is based on the DVD player having an connection to the internet, it would be pretty simple to set up the local network in a way that redirects all download attempts to a local server which just gives out 0-second spots or something.
British Forces Broadcasting System?
Not really. I thought about old BBC series/films that were dubbed and broadcast in the normal German channels.
Hmmmm... Maybe thath why at the end of the monthth there is never any money lefth. I meant seventies / eighties and got mixed up it seems.... eehh.. I mean seemth.
I really liked some of the BBC programs that were broadcast here in Germany in the 70th and 80th.
I would gladly pay for them, If I could get them in some way, but the whole internet distribution seems to be planned UK only, at least it was that way when I investigated a few weeks back.
So to which politics-critter should I write to get that rain thing taken care of? It's responsible for most of the rust on my car.
Funny how many of this stories surface, which basically just state the same "everything that is not encrypted on the network can be seen pretty easily" over and over again.
That is called "Windows"
Unfortunately one big evil software Company has dibs on the concept.
Uhhhh.... I was completely mixed up with the German / English grouping characters during copy/paste it seems ;-)
Correct would be (I hope):
1 penny = 4.54 grams
$47,680 = 4,768,000 pennies
4,768,000 pennies * 4.54 grams = 21,646,720 grams = 21,646.720 kilos = 21.646 tons
21.646 tons / 40 tons = .518 trucks.
Yeah. That's not really very impressive. Bummer.
I think 21.646 tons of cash would scare them if they get it on one load at the same time.
That's would be about 542 trucks if you use 40 tonners. The traffic jam alone would be impressive. ;-)
.... Toronto should pay. .... In cash. .... In pennies.
... Point him to this statement by Secretary of Justice Zypries
6 50-5639-1-p491.html#frage67105
..
.. would be necessary that you as the programmer would have to have know of the specific hacking attempt that was planned with your software.
http://www.abgeordnetenwatch.de/brigitte_zypries-
Which basically not only states the primary INTEND of the software itself has to be to commit a crime, but also
".. Erforderlich ist, dass der Täter eine eigene oder fremde Computerstraftat in Aussicht genommen hat,"
She specifically says that use of such software to test security or for educational purposes is NOT punishable.
I sure hope they clean up the text in the article itself that way, though.
I have dug a little further.
3 &id=0&q=%22%A7+202+StGB%22)
A lot of representative of the Bundestag have discussed that meaning of that article.
(http://www.abgeordnetenwatch.de/index.php?cmd=22
They all state that the PRIMARY INTENTION of the programmer / distributor / user has to be to hack someone.
( Danach sind nur Computerprogramme betroffen, die in erster Linie dafür ausgelegt oder hergestellt werden, um damit Straftaten nach 202a, 202b StGB zu begehen. )
A few have also said, that they possibly will have to act quickly and clarify that in the text if the wording is mis-interpreted in courts.
http://dejure.org/gesetze/StGB/202c.html
...
202c
Vorbereiten des Ausspähens und Abfangens von Daten
-> Preparation to spy out or intercept data.
(1) Wer eine Straftat nach 202a oder 202b vorbereitet, indem er
-> Anyone preparing a criminal offense according to 202a or 202b by
1. Passwörter oder sonstige Sicherungscodes, die den Zugang zu Daten ( 202a Abs. 2) ermöglichen, oder
-> collecting passwords or similar security codes, which allow access to data ( 202a / 2), or
2. Computerprogramme, deren Zweck die Begehung einer solchen Tat ist, herstellt, sich oder einem anderen verschafft, verkauft, einem anderen überlässt, verbreitet oder sonst zugänglich macht, wird mit Freiheitsstrafe bis zu einem Jahr oder mit Geldstrafe bestraft.
-> produe, supply or sell Computer Software with aims at perpetrating such offenses, is punishable by one one year in prison or a fine.
Where 202a/b basically define the crime "getting at data you are not supposed to get at"
I think the real problem is the first sentence "Anyone preparing a criminal offense according to 202a or 202b by..." which creates a circular dependency. I really don't understand even from the German text if that means that 202c 1/2 only comes into effect if you really are preparing to actually hack someone specific (202a/b) of if it's the other way around.
I don't give that law a lot of time before it is changed. (At least I hope so)
Maybe you could go into Second Live to play World of Warcraft, because you can afford a computer with better graphics in there? ;-)
In my opinion the most important thing to know about computers :
1. All programs will have bugs.
2. Don't blindly trust any of them.
That's the problem with a lot of recent TV.
They don't bother to keep us interested with things that really ARE interesting, but with mildly interesting cliffhanger here, cliffhanger there, to get us watch the thing next week.
I'm fed up with it to the point that I don't even bother watching shows on the first run anymore. Invasion, Jericho, etc.... string people along with cliffhanger after cliffhanger until the entire series stops one day with a cliffhanger that is never resolved.
Of course when the whole think reaches syndication one day nobody bothers to watch it, since they know there is no real ending anyway. The shows with in themselves conclusive episodes might not be such a quick starter than the cliffhanger ones, but I think I will think in 10 years or* so "Oh, there is Firefly again. Might as well catch a few Episodes, they were good"
*If there still is such thing as broadcast TV then.
Well, if the brain behind the source gets hit by a bus I think it's bad for commercially supported software, too.
;-)
So what if ReiserFS get's not developed further? There's still dozens of other file system to choose from.
We use both commercial and free open source software in our company, and support or bugfixes are not generally faster/slower better/worse from one or the other. The only thing you can't to when you don't have commercial support is pin the blame on someone else when it isn't working.
I have had very good personal experiences with Oracle support. Microsoft often has a "Yeah, we now it doesn't work in your case, but we can't be bothered to fix it" approach. Guess our 2000 client licenses plus a few dozen different servers don't get us much priority.
And take a case like PeopleSoft for example a commercial company can get bought up, and the support for your product dumped sooner or later without anyone actually getting hit by a bus.
Just take XP / Vista. If you want to continue using XP you are out of luck, because it's going to get de-supported pretty soon. ( And we are still using Windows 2000 mostly, because some special software from a commercial vendor doesn't even work on XP )
I think when an open source product has enough people using it, there will always be someone to pick the pieces up when the original writer leaves the project for whatever reason.
Yeah, but what is lacking somewhat is a standard way of passing data from that scripting languages from and too applications.
I have for instance written a little perl script which automates my video encoding / dvd burning.
For getting the information for the source file I use "mplayer -identify" and get a list of information in a PARAMETER=VALUE format, which I must parse. Then I have to construct the command line parameters for all the scripts in another format. Then I have to write the configuration file for dvdauthor in XML. Then I have to write the configuration file for some of the subtitle processors in yet another format.
Which might not be a problem for me and you, but it would be nicer to have a somewhat standard format to pass data in the pipes.
ps -eaf |grep process |grep -v grep|awk '//{print $2}' |xargs kill
Works fine, until someday on some platform someone manages to create a user with a space in the name.
It's an interesting idea to separate the data a program uses form the text in/out. Objects might not be the best way, and the implementation from MS might suck, but it's basically a worthy idea in my opinion.
Does that mean the 40 gig file I can pipe to a Unix command is passes as an object in PowerShell, and maybe loaded into memory first? ;-)
Other than that it might prove really useful. I have often looked for some way to simplify the piping in unix without having to play with sed/grep/awk to much and hope the command output doesn't change in future versions.
Microsoft has of course the advantage that they can define the object format in-house.
Maybe one should have a look at such a format for oss software (<cheesy_buwwzord> maybe an xml schema</cheesy_buzzword>), and creating additional objout/objin pipes in addition to the stdin/stdout ones.
On the other hand, if you go to Slashdot and tell people that Oracle was in Delphi originally, you can really confuse people. ;-)
Ah, so according to that it would be "Free Speech", ....
... If I claim to be an FBI Agent, back that claim up with an forged badge, go to your local police station and ask the friendly people there to lock you up for a few days?
Still only about 90-95% efficiency, compared to the ~99.8% of transformers once they reach the >= 50 MVA ballpark.
Then again, I just figured :
You could still generate AC at the power plant, transform it *UP*, convert to DC, distribute in a DC network, and do the *DOWN* conversion with DC-DC converters at the endpoints.
Well, mechanical and electrically BLDCs motors are AC motors, with electronics included so that the AC that is needed to run the motor is generated from the input DC.
Wether the AC is sinusoid or rectangular doesn't matter much for most cases.
I guess once the electronics have reached a level of improvement where the energy loss in (and the cost of) them becomes negligible compared to that of the motor it won't matter much wether the electronics themself are fed by AC or DC.
But while DC-DC transformers that transform voltage DOWN have been available for some years now, I haven't seen a good approach to get voltage UP.
Even at the Solid-State High Voltage, DC Power Distribution & Control project at CERN http://accelconf.web.cern.ch/accelconf/p99/PAPERS/ THDR5.PDF they still use AC and an AC Transformator to get the High voltage they then rectify into DC. But I have been out of the loop of that for a few years, anything new there?
Yep, big DC motors are not very good or efficient.
Another problem with DC motors are the brushes, which have to be replaced regularly on high-power ones.
For that reason, one of my jobs a few years ago was to figure out a way to replace hundreds of high-power DC motors in production lines (which were used because before modern electronics to change the frequency of AC the speed regulation of DC motors was simpler) with AC ones. They consumed about 75% of the energy the DC ones had to use, and were about half the size.