And when you call you'll get put through to LinuxCare. That's if they can find time to pick up the phone while they frantically update their resumes and surf tech jobs sites...
Hmm. Worse still, I'm guessing that a lot of people use the same password on all the sites they're registered with, because remembering multiple passwords is a pain.
That would mean that if a site can collect a cookie from someone who stores the password clientside using some lame - and known - encoding, they could try it out on a few more serious sites that just use the old random number trick. There's gotta be at least an even chance of them being able to get in.
Sorry, I must have missed the insight that got this moderated up. The point is that even a small percentage of the Indian population getting online would lead to a massive increase in the amount of Indian web content out there, in Indian languages, aimed at Indian people. Amazon.com is not likely to be as popular in Bangalore as Ganges.in... The sooner Westerners realise that they are a small minority and that the first two letters of WWW mean World-Wide, the better. Posts like this just show how far away that eventuality is.
In fact the Win2K pre-releases are all time limited - and anybody who got, say, RC2, and then received RC3 in the post would have been a fool to leave their RC2 machine up and not upgrade it just to maintain uptime. Similarly most installations will have moved from RC3 to the RTM version now, and will probably reinstall when they get access to an OEM version. Not doing so is like refusing to upgrade from a beta release Linux kernel to a full release when it becomes available - which on a full production server is crazy.
So give Win2k a chance. FWIW I've never seen it crash once - yet.
The UK parliament dropped its parliament.gov.uk domain a while back on the grounds that parliament is not a subsidiary of the government. Check out www.parliament.uk.
This isn't petty. It's important. Anything with a.gov domain element should clearly be in the control of the government. Party groups are.orgs, and that's that.
So what exactly determines bad faith? Does this mean if I thought up the name personaljunk.com and registered it, it can be yanked if I didn't have the money to trademark it, and then some corporate bigwig went ahead and decided: "Golly gee Wally, I want that domain since I have money and personaljunk sounds like a moneymaker."hypothetical situation obviously Who is going to determine this? Certainly not congress. They have enough issues chasing script kiddies defacing senate.org. Who's going to monitor corporate bullies? ICANN? What happens if/when ICANN runs out of money? The domain registrars? The ones who don't collaborate on issues such as NSI?
Dunno how it works in the US but where I come from it's courts who decide on the application of a law once its been passed. And no, X couldn't trademark a name that was already registered as a domain with the intention of stealing it because the owners of the domain would not be acting in bad faith, nor would they have registered a domain name which conflicted with a trademark that existed at the time they registered it which the act specifically requires.
Actually, it looks like a surprisingly well drafted piece of legislation, considering it concerns the Internet. I'm not sure there's a precedent for this:)
A friend gave me the movie. 1.1 gigs in Mpeg over two files. Looks good in full-screen, although it's overly dark and the sound isn't the best. Nevertheless, I don't think it was recorded in a movie theatre - the aspect ration is 4:3 and there are no typical theatre sounds or anything else that would indicate that. My best guess is that whoever uploaded it got it when the video release for the movie was being created.
In regard to the 16kHz limitation, that is what I read in an article about the spec in Stereophile a whiles back. If I was wrong, I apologize. As to the Frauenhofer vs Xing, I use Frauenhofer (Xing is certainly inferior) and I can still hear a difference.
As to the professional musician - it's not that the difference is obvious - it's not. But I can hear a difference on my $3,000 system, and that's enough to make me think twice before giving up my CDs.
There is a lot of FUD in that article, and the breathless style seems out of place on CNN.
However, there are some points that I'd like to take issue with. He seems to accept that MP3 is near-CD quality sound, only that it's played through poor equipment (like the Rio, or a pair of tinny computer speakers). This is untrue. MP3 truncates the signal above 16kilohertz, making it unsuitable for jazz, classical, or any other music that has frequent highs. Beyond this, the standard MP3 encoding (128k/s at 44.1kHz) is unsuitable for anything BUT tinny computer speakers. Try this experiment: Find a well recorded CD (I like to use the recent reissue of Kind of Blue), take a song off it and encode it to MP3. Hook a computer with a good sound card up to a high-end stereo and play both the CD and the MP3. The difference is astounding, and the implication is obvious: for anything but standard computer speakers and devices like the Rio, MP3 is inferior. To get anything near "CD quality sound," you need to encode at 256k/s, where the compression ratio is less than half 128, making file sizes approach 10MB.
But this is acceptable for MP3's core audience - college students that have broadband access. Let's face it, there are very few Baby Boomers dowloading music and buying Rios. College students have the time, computers, and access to carry the MP3 movement far, and are generally unaware of or just don't care about the legal implications. Hence, there is already a huge installed base of intelligent users in the 18-24 demographic who will be reluctant to dowload gigabytes of music that they already have in "near-CD quality" (read it: suitable for their purposes) format. What the record companies want is of less importance than what consumers want.
Slashdot Mirror
And when you call you'll get put through to LinuxCare. That's if they can find time to pick up the phone while they frantically update their resumes and surf tech jobs sites...
Well, Andover.net's investors and advertisers probably have a certain influence in demanding Slashdot be kept up 24/7
That would mean that if a site can collect a cookie from someone who stores the password clientside using some lame - and known - encoding, they could try it out on a few more serious sites that just use the old random number trick. There's gotta be at least an even chance of them being able to get in.
Sorry, I must have missed the insight that got this moderated up. The point is that even a small percentage of the Indian population getting online would lead to a massive increase in the amount of Indian web content out there, in Indian languages, aimed at Indian people. Amazon.com is not likely to be as popular in Bangalore as Ganges.in...
The sooner Westerners realise that they are a small minority and that the first two letters of WWW mean World-Wide, the better. Posts like this just show how far away that eventuality is.
Question:
If you pull over to let them by, are you aiding and abetting in their act of speeding?
So give Win2k a chance. FWIW I've never seen it crash once - yet.
This isn't petty. It's important. Anything with a .gov domain element should clearly be in the control of the government. Party groups are .orgs, and that's that.
Dunno how it works in the US but where I come from it's courts who decide on the application of a law once its been passed. And no, X couldn't trademark a name that was already registered as a domain with the intention of stealing it because the owners of the domain would not be acting in bad faith, nor would they have registered a domain name which conflicted with a trademark that existed at the time they registered it which the act specifically requires.
Actually, it looks like a surprisingly well drafted piece of legislation, considering it concerns the Internet. I'm not sure there's a precedent for this :)
So Congress came up with the Internet in the 1930s? Why didn't they tell anyone about it?
Bad luck - It's BBC WorldService TV - not the real terrestrial stuff. You have to be a bona fide licence payer to get to watch this one.
A friend gave me the movie. 1.1 gigs in Mpeg over two files. Looks good in full-screen, although it's overly dark and the sound isn't the best. Nevertheless, I don't think it was recorded in a movie theatre - the aspect ration is 4:3 and there are no typical theatre sounds or anything else that would indicate that.
My best guess is that whoever uploaded it got it when the video release for the movie was being created.
In regard to the 16kHz limitation, that is what I read in an article about the spec in Stereophile a whiles back. If I was wrong, I apologize. As to the Frauenhofer vs Xing, I use Frauenhofer (Xing is certainly inferior) and I can still hear a difference.
As to the professional musician - it's not that the difference is obvious - it's not. But I can hear a difference on my $3,000 system, and that's enough to make me think twice before giving up my CDs.
There is a lot of FUD in that article, and the breathless style seems out of place on CNN.
However, there are some points that I'd like to take issue with. He seems to accept that MP3 is near-CD quality sound, only that it's played through poor equipment (like the Rio, or a pair of tinny computer speakers). This is untrue. MP3 truncates the signal above 16kilohertz, making it unsuitable for jazz, classical, or any other music that has frequent highs. Beyond this, the standard MP3 encoding (128k/s at 44.1kHz) is unsuitable for anything BUT tinny computer speakers. Try this experiment: Find a well recorded CD (I like to use the recent reissue of Kind of Blue), take a song off it and encode it to MP3. Hook a computer with a good sound card up to a high-end stereo and play both the CD and the MP3. The difference is astounding, and the implication is obvious: for anything but standard computer speakers and devices like the Rio, MP3 is inferior. To get anything near "CD quality sound," you need to encode at 256k/s, where the compression ratio is less than half 128, making file sizes approach 10MB.
But this is acceptable for MP3's core audience - college students that have broadband access. Let's face it, there are very few Baby Boomers dowloading music and buying Rios. College students have the time, computers, and access to carry the MP3 movement far, and are generally unaware of or just don't care about the legal implications. Hence, there is already a huge installed base of intelligent users in the 18-24 demographic who will be reluctant to dowload gigabytes of music that they already have in "near-CD quality" (read it: suitable for their purposes) format. What the record companies want is of less importance than what consumers want.