Recent Posts

9676

Living Room / Re: When Social Media Users Hulk Up!

« Last post by Renegade on June 19, 2010, 08:56 PM »

Meh. I don't see the point in getting upset. The guy just signed someone's death warrant, so I'd just write it off as him trying to reconcile his conscience in some way. But actually having politicians tweet things on their own might be a good thing.

@40Hz - (shameless plug) -- My little Twittle Twiddle Tweeter makes tweeting easier. (I'd never use Twitter otherwise.)

9677

Living Room / Re: Interesting Side-Step of Copyright; Also Porn

« Last post by Renegade on June 19, 2010, 08:43 PM »

Porn films have been doing this for years. e.g. Flatliners >> Fatliners. They won't get sued. There's no cross-over competition in those markets, though the porn industry most certainly is riding off the coat tails of the non-porn industry. I do wonder though if someday they might be forced to pay licensing fees... The current tone of IP is seriously getting to be dangerous (there was a previous thread with something about fact "ownership"). I'd prefer to see porn free to do as it pleases without interference -- we really don't need more laws.

Parody may just be put in jeopardy though if things like this do get sued. (Family Guy has done Star Wars movies in their entirety.)

Anyways, for those that always wanted to see Smurfette do the nasty, this might just be the next best thing.

9678

Living Room / Re: Why does the computer have to pause when you stick in a blank dvd/cd?

« Last post by Renegade on June 19, 2010, 08:36 PM »

They pause because they aren't multithreaded and they are waiting for the OS to mount the CD then read it. I don't know of any good file explorers that are written closer to the metal to avoid delays and the like. It probably could be done.

One of the problems in Windows is that file meta data gets read (size, read-only, EXIF-type info, etc.) and that is very time consuming. Other systems get around that by only reading the file name to start, which doesn't truly solve the problem, but works around it.

etc. etc.

I think that to get beyond this, we pretty much need to wait for Microsoft to come out with their new file system. That might do it -- not too sure though. It is completely different from any other file system. Right now file systems are all pretty much the same. MS's new one is supposed to be a sort of database. I don't know how normalized it will be, or any of that, but I'm sure you can look it up.

9679

Living Room / Re: Facebook Login Issues?

« Last post by Renegade on June 19, 2010, 11:39 AM »

Make sure he does a more in-depth check than just the HOSTS file. If I were a malware author, I wouldn't use that as an attack vector. I'd rather go for the browser or the networking infrastructure as that is harder to detect/cure. 

9680

Living Room / Re: Shiny Disco Balls

« Last post by Renegade on June 19, 2010, 11:36 AM »

And the grand-daddy of all techno, from 1969:

http://www.youtube.c.../watch?v=OSRCemf2JHc

Bonus treat is that is the original video for it, as far as I know.

-app103 (June 18, 2010, 03:44 PM)

now that is amazing. i didn't realise the version i grew up with was just a cover of this. that really is a timeless piece of work.

-nudone (June 19, 2010, 03:40 AM)

Ditto.

The only things I found missing, were colors and LSD, and if there were LSD, the colors would have come out anyways.

I love trippy stuff.

9681

Living Room / Re: Why do we always wait for apple's stuff before making a i[blank]-killer??

« Last post by Renegade on June 19, 2010, 11:30 AM »

Most people are going to judge the product int he first 30 seconds of holding it.

This is what I mean about Ubuntu and Suse. If you had a blind taste test, you'd find that Ubuntu is nicer than OS X.

The thing is they aren't judging the PRODUCT. They are judging the product image, and how they fit in with it. Linux has a crap image. It's for "geeks and weirdos". OS X is for "cool, savvy, rich and fashionable people that are tuned in and in-the-know". There's a distinct break between the reality there. Ubuntu is simply easier to use and friendlier. They've done a spectacular job. (Linux today is nothing like it was 10 years ago -- it really is excellent now.)

9682

Living Room / Re: Facebook Login Issues?

« Last post by Renegade on June 18, 2010, 11:12 PM »

a friend had this problem of facebook being redirected to ooyala.com but the other computers on the network worked fine. i told him to check his hosts file in the windows folder. he hasn't come back to me yet..

-lanux128 (June 18, 2010, 10:57 PM)

That sounds like a virus.

9683

Living Room / Re: Why do we always wait for apple's stuff before making a i[blank]-killer??

« Last post by Renegade on June 18, 2010, 07:15 PM »

And whats the best way to convince yourself you like something? Get other people to want it!

-Eóin (June 18, 2010, 06:19 PM)

Good point.

The greater the investment, the stronger the attraction, and the more vehement the resistance.

When people spend a large amount on something, they want their expenditure to be valuable, and they resist any notion that they've been bamboozled or that a smaller expenditure could be equivalent (in results) or better. Who wants to be taken in? It's voluntary blindness for the sake of preserving the ego.

9684

Living Room / Re: Facebook Login Issues?

« Last post by Renegade on June 18, 2010, 06:58 PM »

This isn't affected by scripts or anything. It's the same on several computers in different browsers on each.

That addon you pointed out looks quite cool, and like a good thing to have.

9685

Living Room / Facebook Login Issues?

« Last post by Renegade on June 18, 2010, 11:04 AM »

Is anyone having any Facebook login problems? My wife keeps getting dead pages or incorrect HTTPS certificate problems when she tries to login.

It's been going on for a while, so I'm starting to think that it may be an SSL MIM attack by the ISP... Sheesh... Now if that's not paranoia, I don't know what is!

Anyways, aside from the Australian spy agency attacking Facebook users, is there anything in realityville that's causing problems?

9686

Living Room / Re: Elastic Lists - The Possible Future of Semantic Search

« Last post by Renegade on June 18, 2010, 04:14 AM »

Very interesting!

That demo has issues, but I don’t think those damn elastic lists per se. Some of my criticisms: too many facet values as refinement options, lack of parallelism (e.g., locations aren’t hierarchical and some options should be children of others), lack of normalization of organizations (e.g., google and google inc.), and a confusing description facet (e.g., choices include “computer software” and “software”). In contrast, the Nobel Prize demo strikes me as a much better demo of elastic lists.

-Paul Keith (June 17, 2010, 05:50 PM)

Good observation there.

The thing there is the size... You need a very high degree of normalization in order to get that interface correct. The top navigation represents how the data is normalized to drill down into.

The overall concept is nothing new --- filtered results. The implementation is novel, and even slick.

It would be nice if there were some programming components that could do that. Well, Excel has it built in kind-of, as does Access. But nice elastic interfaces like that would be nice. (Good choice on the name for it as well.)

I can think of some immediate applications that I could use it for right now.

9687

Living Room / Re: The proper word is “dependent,” not addicted.

« Last post by Renegade on June 17, 2010, 09:50 PM »

In another light and respect for those who need synthetic or natural substitutes-
Dependent would be if you need something your body or mind cannot produce on it's own.

-cmpm (June 17, 2010, 09:25 PM)

That seems like a very good definition.

9688

Living Room / Re: 20 years later, the movie "Total Recall" still kicks butt

« Last post by Renegade on June 17, 2010, 08:58 PM »

Especially effective is the old trick of dropping every third frame to create a subtle but noticable choppiness that gets most people edgy without their knowing why. 

-40hz (June 17, 2010, 08:29 PM)

That is wicked~! I've never heard of that before!

9689

Living Room / Re: The proper word is “dependent,” not addicted.

« Last post by Renegade on June 17, 2010, 08:56 PM »

Is it possible for those endorphins to permanently stop? That would seem like permanent damage, and permanent addiction?

Addiction is prolonged, habitual use of synthetic or natural substance to attain a certain state of mind or body.

Sex & gambling are addictive, but don't involve substances, though they do produce an effect in the brain (chemical releases). In a similar way, Koreans in general are quite literally addicted to kimchi and Korean food. The hot peppers produce a pleasant effect as the brain releases chemicals to combat the pain in the mouth. By association, people crave that food. I've seen this in action quite a few times as people are "jonesing" for Korean food. I've heard similar stories about people from other countries.

I suppose the same goes for "thrill seekers" and "extreme sports fanatics"?

Do you know of any research on that? It seems like a lot of things, and almost anything can be addictive. I'm no expert in the subject, so I really am just blurting out nonsense.

From my own experience, I would have to say that "addiction" can be almost equivocated with "compulsion", in the sense that you are quite literally compelled to do something (cigarettes, drugs, booze, whatever).

9690

Living Room / Re: The proper word is “dependent,” not addicted.

« Last post by Renegade on June 17, 2010, 08:44 PM »

For the most part, these word plays seem pedantic until it's used politically against people.

Not saying that's the author's intent but judging by the educational slant at the end, he may be trying to prevent the act from being demonized.

-Paul Keith (June 17, 2010, 08:03 PM)

I think you're right.

There's a nice way and a mean way to say things. I think they're trying to force niceness on things there. Which is what I really hate. Let people expose their attitudes through their word choices. Forcing things down a specific road is not going to solve the problem. e.g. You may have KKK members calling people "black" or "African-American", but that doesn't mean that they still don't think that they are "<n-word>".

In any event, I don't think that it matters much whether we call Facebook-junkies this, that or the other thing, but it does matter when we try to artificially impose language where it isn't required. I think it would be better if racists actually used the n-word out in the open, because it would make them easier to identify. Well, maybe not. But it would make them easier to identify.

I for one am both reliant on the Internet and a junkie. I see those as 2 different things.

For example, here, I am basically a junkie. I'm not really doing much more than relaxing and chatting with people, and not being very productive. I spend too much time here quite often. I'm a DC-junkie.

On the other hand, I NEED the Internet to work. For example, yesterday and the day before I had a serious problem that I couldn't solve, and needed to find the root cause. It took a very long time for me to diagnose the problem, and I was entirely DEPENDENT on searching for answers. (Incidentally, the diagnosis for the problem was orphaned users in SQL Server 2008. Very simple to solve ONCE you know the problem...) I'm reliant on the Internet to be productive.

Meh... It's splitting hairs in a lot of ways. Horseshoes and hand grenades? Close is good enough?

9691

Living Room / Re: The proper word is “dependent,” not addicted.

« Last post by Renegade on June 17, 2010, 07:58 PM »

I loathe that sort of screwing around with words. It's just BS. To depend or RELY on something for a purpose is normal, but does a lot of that "dependency" have a purpose? A real purpose? I don't take "getting high" to be a real purpose.

Face it. A lot of us are just techno-junkies. Period.

The author links to this.

The addiction metaphor also distorts the nature of technological change by suggesting that our use of a technology stems from a purely personal choice - like the choice to smoke or to drink. An inability to control that choice becomes, in this view, simply a personal failing. But while it's true that, in the end, we're all responsible for how we spend our time, it's an oversimplification to argue that we're free "to choose" whether and how we use computers and cell phones, as if social norms, job expectations, familial responsibilities, and other external pressures had nothing to do with it. The deeper a technology is woven into the patterns of everyday life, the less choice we have about whether and how we use that technology.

How is it different to squander time/resources/whatever on Facebook vs. heroin/alcohol/tobacco/sex/pron/gambling/whatever else people consider "addictive"?

From the comments:

I remain unclear why you think "internet addiction" should be considered "rhetorical overkill"? There is a growing body of evidence that would suggest otherwise, though admittedly it is controversial and I doubt you are trying to make a psychological argument about the merits of including it in the next DSM...

Nope. Some people are just techno-junkies. Other commenters think so as well:

Internet addiction is real according to 69% of my respondents

http://stark-raving-...-addiction-real.html

(admittedly, perhaps a somewhat biased group) Only 4% did not believe that internet addiction was real, and 27% voted "maybe."

I've also noticed that "If there's one thing we're addicted to these days, it's the word 'addiction'" as you pointed out:

http://stark-raving-...gs-white-people.html

I propose that we drop the words "addict" and "dependent" and adopt "junkie".

9692

Living Room / Re: The Password Encryption Education Thread

« Last post by Renegade on June 17, 2010, 07:33 PM »

Encryption like that is cumulative, so you can use both, or use 1 of them 2x. Technically, you could have a 2-bit encryption scheme and just run it again and again to get the same kind of security.

-Renegade (June 17, 2010, 09:55 AM)

This is true for some cyphers, but not all. And I don't understand them well enough to know which is which.

-CWuestefeld (June 17, 2010, 05:06 PM)

It's true for symmetric encryption in general as far as I know. There are ciphers that will give you the same result back after being run a few times (e.g. Letter shifting). I don't know of any cipher that you'd actually use in the real world that wouldn't be cumulative. I presume it's true for all cryptographically strong ciphers.

It's pointless for asymmetric encryption as it defeats the purpose.

9693

Living Room / Re: What the heck has happened to Google search?

« Last post by Renegade on June 17, 2010, 07:09 PM »

This is a page from Google search results: http://www.bigresource.com/Tracker/Track-ms_sql-fqOlzqVW/ (in case it gets squashed: http://www.bigresour...ack-ms_sql-fqOlzqVW/ )

Look at the header, then the body. It's EXACTLY an MSDN page ripped out -- stolen. Pathetic that sort of crap makes it into Google SERPs.

9694

Living Room / Re: The Password Encryption Education Thread

« Last post by Renegade on June 17, 2010, 09:55 AM »

Encryption like that is cumulative, so you can use both, or use 1 of them 2x. Technically, you could have a 2-bit encryption scheme and just run it again and again to get the same kind of security. Many schemes can have different bit lengths as well. e.g. You can have 512-bit AES as well.

AES is still a standard, and that won't change. Everyone will use it and support it. Most often, security is about money, and not about security.

9695

Living Room / Re: The Password Encryption Education Thread

« Last post by Renegade on June 17, 2010, 09:34 AM »

It's saying DES < AES < Blowfish. And about patents and speed. AES takes CPU where other methods are less intense.

9696

Living Room / Re: Shiny Disco Balls

« Last post by Renegade on June 17, 2010, 06:19 AM »

And just 2 years before that (1977), Jean Michel Jarre released this timeless classic:

http://www.youtube.c...t?p=CDA9B9BD30F40AB0

http://en.wikipedia....rg/wiki/Oxyg%C3%A8ne

-app103 (June 17, 2010, 02:17 AM)

THANK-YOU!

For pointing that out! Loved it! I will definitely have to go out and buy that.

9697

Living Room / Re: 20 years later, the movie "Total Recall" still kicks butt

« Last post by Renegade on June 17, 2010, 06:14 AM »

...
Movies really irritate me when people behave irrationally or illogically for no good reason. (Upon reflection, that sounds funny, I need a valid, logical reason for someone to behave illogically.) I'm not good at watching movies just for entertainment. I usually can't help but think about them for the next few days and analyze them to pieces.
...

-Deozaan (June 17, 2010, 02:05 AM)

I know what you mean. But I think that movies are also a reflection of the general level of sophistication of their first audiences. Less education means there is less of a burden on the film maker to make things align closer to reality.

Take the "hacker" that takes control of all the government military computers through "military strength firewalls and encryption", finds the "secret plans", and hands them to the hero. In 30 seconds. All the while screaming, "Hold on! Just wait!"

Never mind that it would take all the computers in the world trillions upon trillions of universe lifetimes to crack just 1 encrypted key. That's too long for the audience to wait. Make it 10 seconds.

That's the general level of sophistication of the average person. The people here at this forum are not representative of the norm.

But so what? It pays off to suspend disbelief, buy into the ridiculousness and just enjoy the movie no matter how far fetched things are.

Take CSI... Yikes. Need I say more?

What I would really like more of are films like Riddick where instead of some typical, lame hero, you get the ANTI-HERO! Elric of Melniboné and Stormbringer. That's the kind of stuff that puffy film studios just can't manage to get done. Sigh...

It's so bad that quite often I find myself rooting for the "bad guy".

Oh - DEXTER. Great show.

Well, I'm wandering very far off-topic yet again.

Suspending disbelief. Yes. That helps make movies/shows more enjoyable.

9698

Living Room / Re: 20 years later, the movie "Total Recall" still kicks butt

« Last post by Renegade on June 17, 2010, 12:03 AM »

It shows that a good story with a good script far outdoes any special effects.

-Renegade (June 15, 2010, 08:35 PM)

Agree 100%. Unfortunately, good sci-fi and speculative fiction stories are getting pretty rare. Some of the best are currently found in Japanese animae films - but that's a topic that rates a whole separate thread.

-40hz (June 15, 2010, 10:25 PM)

Have you seen "Fallen" with Denzel Washington, John Goodman and Donald Sutherland? It's a horror film, but it's just beyond spectacular. I've seen it probably 50 times or more. (An international title for it was "Dark Angel".)

It only rates 42% at Rotten Tomatoes, but they're retards. It really is very cool. Even if it recycles some themes, it's done really well.

I find that the very best films are often horror films. Now, 99% of horror films are just drivel, but that rare horror that pokes its head above the crowd really does go beyond.

Sci-fi I find are generally more consistently good, but again, rarely truly are "great". Star Wars and Blade Runner are what film makers aspire to. Getting there is another thing though.

A lot of current TV shows are doing very well with good plots and writing. Lost, Supernatural, Flash Forward, Fringe, Heroes, Paradox, Star Gate (various spin offs), Southpark, and I'm sure others can name more -- these push different methods and literary devices with plot twists and the like that you don't get in shows like "Friends" (which I find mildly humorous, but entirely stupid) or other typically mainstream shows.

There's nothing better than a show that when it finishes, you're swearing and cursing a blue streak because now you have to wait an entire week to find out what happens next.

The show "Surface" was very cool, but got canceled, leaving the final episode as a cliff hanger ending. Disappointing when shows get canceled sometimes. Farscape deserved better.

Blah. I'm rambling now.

9699

Living Room / Re: If smartphones keep getting this much better so quickly, I'll reconsider

« Last post by Renegade on June 16, 2010, 07:55 PM »

Check out the 6th pic in that gallery. The phone has "Confidential Motorola restricted property" on the side. Apple might want to take a lesson there.

9700

Living Room / Re: Microsoft lashes out at Googler for making Windows vulnerability public

« Last post by Renegade on June 16, 2010, 07:51 PM »

Boy, you guys sure have a lot of certainty at arm's length (or more). I'm afraid I can't compete with that kind of clarity of vision. But the release of demo exploit code is far from unprecedented...

-JavaJones (June 16, 2010, 02:17 AM)

No, not unprecedented.  Not clarity of vision nor certainty on the actual discussions or conversations either.

But the 5 days to release an exploit is the part I'm having a hard time with.  Can you give *any* circumstances where it's OK to release actual working exploit code after 5 days notice?

Let's err on his side.
1. I find an exploit.
2. I contact MS.
3. They're complete and utter douches and won't work with me at all nor give me the time of day.
4. I release exploit code after 5 days.

Even in *that* case, where is the justification for releasing *working* exploit code into the wild?

-wraith808 (June 16, 2010, 08:24 AM)

+1 for that. (See below for "justification".)

+1

Again, all he had to do was release his findings to one or two watchdog organizations - or go public with his findings, but without releasing specifics or the code - and wheels would gave been set in motion such that it would have been impossible for Microsoft to ignore the problem.

Unfortunately, his little snit with Microsoft now has the potential to become a problem for millions of Windows users worldwide.

You can slice and dice it from here till next December, split philosophical hairs and argue politics and business until you run out of breath. But at the end of the day, it still remains that it was a very (dare I say criminally?) irresponsible thing to do.

And considering he did so knowing there was no available fix to prevent it, I'm not 100% sure there aren't legal consequences as well. 

-40hz (June 16, 2010, 09:26 AM)

+1 again.

As for criminally, thank-you for bringing that up. While it may or may not be criminal, I think that in the future we'll see legislation making it illegal. At a minimum, it is reckless with serious consequences.

First of all: if he's been in contact with MS and choose to release exploit code within a week... then he really deserves to be slapped around. Releasing exploit details is something you do either
1) after patches have been made public and have had time to be rolled out, or
2) if the organization has been ignoring you for "long enough" (which is definitely more than a couple of weeks).

When an exploit is reported, the company needs to investigate it, which includes being able to reproduce it reliably and finding a bugfix. Then that bugfix has to be tested thoroughly before a patch can be rolled out. Going public with exploit details within a week? Christ.

-f0dder (June 16, 2010, 09:43 AM)

You forgot the cases where you do it because:

1) You want to embarrass the manufacturer
2) You want to cause maximum damage

 

I'm not suggesting that he did nothing wrong by any means. I just felt like the castigation of Google was rather far of the mark, and that the whole situation was being seen in rather black and white terms. Try this on for size:

1: Google may or may not have had any involvement; in the absence of compelling evidence to prove its involvement, let's assume none. It's only sensible.

2: A security researcher whom is an employee of Google found a flaw in Windows, supposedly on his own time and for his own reasons. He contacted MS who reacted slowly so he got frustrated and made an error in judgment by releasing not just word of the exploit, but demo code as well. Perhaps part of the reason he released demo code was out of frustration for not being taken seriously (i.e. "Don't believe me? Well here it is, it's a real problem. Deal with it"), but that's not a good excuse, and he should not have released actionable code.

3: Microsoft is responsible for a bad bug in their code, one which has been reported previously in other variations and incarnations, going years back (if you believe the Slashdot discussions on the issue). They are also notorious douches, and tend not to "play ball" with security researchers unless they're well known or represent big companies. Microsoft needs to act quicker and be less prejudiced when dealing with reported security flaws.

Does that sound like a balanced view? It does to me.

- Oshyan

-JavaJones (June 16, 2010, 01:15 PM)

1 - I'm not so sure. The recent press on Google abandoning Windows because of "security" just seems to timely. This stinks, and I wouldn't rule out Google involvement. How would you do it? You have to have a "lone wolf" to hang out to dry if things go south.

2 - Agreed.

3 - I wouldn't put much faith in Slashdot. It's full of radicals and lunatics. But yes, MS is responsible for having a bug.

FWIW I doubt very much that Google had much (if anything) to do with what went down.

I think you just had a researcher in Google forget that the rest of the world doesn't operate the way things do inside his company's research department. Especially when it's a company where people are allowed to "run and play" and the open sharing of information and code is the norm. Or at least it is on the "inside."

To my mind, there's nothing intrinsically wrong with living in an ivory tower. Just don't go dumping a chamber pot over the parapet and then expect whoever gets hit not to be upset about it.

-40hz (June 16, 2010, 01:57 PM)

+1 and well put. (I like the chamber pot example.)