Forgot your password?

Comment: Another no. (Score 2) 477

As someone who's been on the audiophile ride from the early days of strange use of the PC speaker, and the first FM synthesis boards, I can say honestly say, a few things happened that made discrete audio hardware obsolete:

1. a basic DSP became widely available, to do audio processing
2. storage became vast enough, combined with audio compression, it made more sense to just pre-record all your audio effects and music and play them back through a basic DSP. I seen this shift in games through the years, from old school methods of creating sound effects and music with code, to just playing audio files included with your game.
3. the general purpose CPU became powerful enough to do any complex signal processing and simply use the basic DSP to output the results of the processing.

Basically, in my opinion, specialize hardware is useless in the face of vast storage and general purpose CPU processing. So a basic DSP is all ya gunna need and that's what basically every PC comes with, standard now.

Comment: Re:Well, this won't backfire! (Score 1) 268

by duke_cheetah2003 (#47315543) Attached to: Wikipedia Editors Hit With $10 Million Defamation Suit

I'm not sure the Streisand Effect applies in this case. He's not actually trying to hide unpleasant or embarrassing aspects of his past - what he seems to want is for the article to reflect his own version of those events, or at least to contain his version (or "spin" if you prefer) in some way. And since he's a marginal figure to begin with, he's really in one of those "any publicity is good publicity" situations.

First off, we do have Streisand effect, I never heard of this guy until today. Now I'm among the millions who've now viewed this suspect wikipedia page. Second and more importantly, you're not permitted a 'side' or whatever you wanna call it on Wikipedia. It's just the facts man, no spin either direction, and from my review of the page, seemed to just present the facts. Or maybe I was reading something wrong, I dunno. Seemed pretty factual to me.

Comment: Completely wrong (Score 4, Interesting) 270

This guy is totally wrong, on so many levels. Yeah, ok, so the last 10 years we've been seeing providers buying preferential treatment from carriers. For most of us, the common Joe, we're not going to feel this, not in 10 years. It's just happening slowly, quietly. I imagine as it progresses further, smaller content providers will be seeing the preferential treatment of larger ones forcing slow downs on them. Given more time, smaller providers and startups will face crushing competition with the big guys who can afford to buy up all the bandwidth. Don't even get me started on content providers whom are also carriers.

And saying just because it's been going on for 10 years that we can't go back? WHAAATT? Is this guy insane? So just because they've been building up contracts of preferential treatment we can't say, "Hey, you need to cut that out now." No sorry, common carrier status for all carriers and be done with this issue. I call shill.

Comment: Re:Arms race (Score 1) 106

So once we create new antibiotics that can defeat these types of drug-resistant bacteria, how long will it be until a completely new resistance appears? Let's hope that in the next century our ability to engineer new antibiotics exceeds the pace that bacteria can evolve to evade them.

Nature is pretty astonishing, huh? In just 100 years, we've gone from finding antibiotics to bugs being able to defeat them. A blink of an eye in the scope of human history. I'm with ya, will it take another 100 years, or less for these bugs to evolve to resist whatever methods we discover to defeat them? I think it'll have a lot to do with what we've do with what we've learned this time. That being, we've learned that resistant bugs are completely our own darn fault.

At least for now, we're keeping up with them it seems, but.. yeah, arms race is a good choice of terms!

Comment: Re:Easier (Score 4, Interesting) 106

Stop disinfecting and over-cleaning everything. Remove the Purell crap. Let kids eat dirt.

1- It will force people to build their immune system (I'm not always sick like younger generations)
2- If you stop killing 99.999% of all bacteria, it will put an end to super-bacteria (the 0.0001% that survive and reproduce)

I *never* use any kind of medicine (unless I have no choice), I never use band aids on nicks and scratches (don't disinfect them either). I have no food intolerance, food allergies or other weird ailment.

Not to burst your bubble, and not really saying these are bad ideas, I infact condone this. Buuut... killing bacteria, being cleanly does not create drug-resistant bacteria. People not finishing their meds after they feel better is what creates nasty bugs, along with a good dose of over prescribing antibiotics. But washing your hands with a disinfectant has little to nothing to do with this problem. They're not becoming resistant to our germ killing soaps and lotions... it's the medications once the bugs get inside you that they're getting good at protecting themselves against.

Comment: Sorry to say... (Score 1) 146

by duke_cheetah2003 (#47209727) Attached to: Auditors Release Verified Repositories of TrueCrypt

But I have come to the conclusion the devs just got sick of giving us free stuff, especially when these auditors came along and got PAID to review code the TrueCrypt devs have been toiling on without pay for years.

All your NSA conspiracy theories are fun to read, but really.. I'm pretty convinced there's nothing wrong with 7.1a that will come to reveal it's fundamentally flawed and insecure.

I think I'd be giving you all the finger too if I worked 10 years without pay and some hooha's came along and got paid a bunch of dough to review my stuff and criticize it.

Move along, nothing to see here now. Just some p/o'd devs giving us all the finger.

Comment: Re:Steve Gibson (Score 1) 475

by duke_cheetah2003 (#47147045) Attached to: The Sudden Policy Change In Truecrypt Explained

Well, off the top of my head, I know there was the raw sockets in Windows thing. My brain wants to say something about documents and Microsoft embedding something in them, or something like that, the memory of this is a bit foggy. It was a long time ago. It was also rather silly.

I do find it a little goofy he's still pushing Spinrite so much. It's not that it's a bad piece of software, many a year ago, it was pretty darn useful.. today though, using this thing is probably an epic waste of time with current drive technology.

That's all I can recall that is questionable about the guy. I think he's published a lot of useful utilities over the years and seems to be interested in spreading useful information. I certainly have no problem with him. I think others bash on him a little too hard over a few mistakes / overhype.

Comment: Re:Steve Gibson (Score 4, Interesting) 475

by duke_cheetah2003 (#47145083) Attached to: The Sudden Policy Change In Truecrypt Explained

Steve has made some mistakes in the past and over-hyped some things, but all in the all, the man means well and is genuinely interested in the welfare of computer users. If you write him off just because he's made a few poor judgments in the past, well, that's your loss. He does have generally useful information and it's presented in a non-nerdy fashion so any bonehead can make sense of it. Usually.

Comment: Re:Ars Scholae Palatinae (Score 2) 475

by duke_cheetah2003 (#47144713) Attached to: The Sudden Policy Change In Truecrypt Explained

This all makes sense to me, until you add in a few strange parts:

1) Why did they nuke all previous versions of the software? The disclaimer is there. There's was no need to nuke the old versions.
2) Why neuter v7.2 so it can't encrypt? Heck, why even release a neutered version? The disclaimer is there. If I was ending my work on a project, I wouldn't end it on 'here's a broken version, and I erased all the good versions.'
2) Why the unprofessional webpage, with screen shots? Screen shots take time to get, so if they spent time on this, why not spent a few extra minutes to make the page look nice as well?
3) Why nuke the TC forum on SourceForge? That makes ZERO sense.. I can't even begin to guess why ANYONE wanted the forum obliterated.

I personally don't know what to make of TrueCrypt's state... There's a lot of conflicting information and it's proving very hard to decide which parts are true and which are fabrications or speculations.

FWIW, I'm inclined to buy into the devs threw in the towel because they're just sick of dealing with it. But even that isn't a sure thing in my mind, it's just highest probability. Sick of it explains the abruptness of the site's change, as well. Doesn't really explain the other anomalies though.

But a close second is they the devs were some how coerced into removing their product from public availability. I'm not sure to what end, because obviously there's mirrors of the software, and already lots of talk about forking or developing something to do the same thing. TrueCrypt is currently the ONLY cross platform encryption solution that works so delightfully transparently on entire devices, or on file containers. TrueCrypt is also still the only crypto package with the built in 'plausible deniability' feature of hidden volumes. Yeah I know it's been shown to be fairly easy to prove the existence of a hidden volume, but you have to know to look and how to look. These features do make it uniquely positioned in the crypto software sphere.

Comment: Is the truth even possible? (Score 3, Interesting) 475

by duke_cheetah2003 (#47144363) Attached to: The Sudden Policy Change In Truecrypt Explained

Given the anonymous nature of the TrueCrypt developers, would we even believe someone who claimed to be a dev and gave us an explanation?

Not sure I would. I've read a lot of different articles and comments about this ordeal and I'm frankly not sure what to believe. I'm not sure if I'd believe someone if they said they were a dev.

I know we'd all laugh if the NSA came out publicly and said "we had nothing to do with it."

Comment: Re:Actual Facts (Score 1) 389

Oh, so, just because unchallenged, unconstitutional laws were passed, it's "legal" for the NSA to violate the constitution? Come on man, I know you're, or at least hope, you're just trying to play devils advocate here, but no matter which way you twist this, at the core, the NSA's activities are illegal. Just because we can't get a court to rule that the laws passed are unconstitutional doesn't mean it's right or even legal. We can't challenge it, they've made it difficult to do so.

I can't come up with a clever analogy, but this is exactly why some laws passed are struck down as unconstitutional. Just because a law was passed doesn't make it right, or even legitimate, and definitely not legal.

These laws empowering the NSA to do what they're doing would never stand a chance in a fair courtroom where the government wasn't allow to hide things under the guise of 'National Security', anyone with half a brain can see that.

I am not now, nor have I ever been, a member of the demigodic party. -- Dennis Ritchie