• Some users have recently had their accounts hijacked. It seems that the now defunct EVGA forums might have compromised your password there and seems many are using the same PW here. We would suggest you UPDATE YOUR PASSWORD and TURN ON 2FA for your account here to further secure it. None of the compromised accounts had 2FA turned on.
    Once you have enabled 2FA, your account will be updated soon to show a badge, letting other members know that you use 2FA to protect your account. This should be beneficial for everyone that uses FSFT.

Using Open Source Software = Rookies Mistake

mckayla-maroney-meme-getty_original.jpg


Guess we know who Anonymous' next DDoS target will be. :D
 
I think any sort of computer reference in entertainment requires massive amounts of "suspension of disbelief" in general ... whether it is the technical wonder of Jeff Goldblum hacking into an alien computer with his Mac in "Independence Day" or Hugh Jackman hacking into a government computer in 2 minutes with a gun to his head and another distraction to a different head in "Swordfish" ... no need to rage over things that the writers and execs can't understand anyway :D
 
Clearly Disney has nothing but contempt for the kids they profess to want to entertain.... :eek:

or....

this entire generation of kids really are stupid beyond belief if that crap can actually entertain them. :rolleyes:

Either way, thank god for Bugs Bunny. :cool:
 
My guess is that it's just some dumb, lazy writers who don't know what they are talking about. The show is obviously crap made to fill air time. I doubt anyone is actually proud of it.

I think the writers just wanted to put "some fancy sounding reason" in there for the sake of the humor of the show. I'm sure they assume that their target audience of children will not understand what the person is saying. The writers obviously don't.
 
The actor said "Did ya use open source code to save time, and the virus was hidden in it?"

He didn't say anything bad about open source itself. He was implying the girl was a rookie for not seeing that this open source had a virus in it.

And as numerous people have pointed out, it's a freaking disney show for kids. If you're looking for technical accuracy from Hollywood, you're going to be profoundly disappointed for quite a long time.

Could we stop trying desperately to look for an issue where absolutely none exists?
 
i smell brainwashing of the children to only trust closed platform software aka apple/microsoft
 
krogen said:
Download source code. Compile. Run.

I don't see the "pay" step anywhere.
Click to expand...

Free as in "free beer" rather than free as in "free speech."

There is no monetary cost, but depending on the license, the software can actually restrict your rights as a result of having obtained it. It's mostly a semantic argument over which type of "free" you are talking about.
 
vengence said:
So by your definition movies are free because you can download and watch them too then right?
Click to expand...

I think there was a compile step in there someplace. I've never had to run a movie through a compiler to execute it. :)
 
vengence said:
What the hell do you call a codex?
Click to expand...

I'm guessing you mean codec since a codex is a handwritten bound book.

A codec is a decoding format similar to compression. It's not really even close to compilation if you've ever written a compiler for school.
 
InternationalHat said:
I'm guessing you mean codec since a codex is a handwritten bound book.

A codec is a decoding format similar to compression. It's not really even close to compilation if you've ever written a compiler for school.
Click to expand...

I did mean codec, not codex. And your right, it's not the same thing, but it is a required step to convert the infromation into a usable form and satisfies the "compile" step. Unless you are going to argue that a compiler (that I doubt he wrote) suddenly added enough creative value to remove the IP protections.
 
I can understand "basic" enhancements, and the most realistic way I've seen "enhancements" in a tv show is on Numbers, but because when they enhance something, it takes days in the tv show, and they only get to the point where it was an outline or something.
 
scojer said:
I can understand "basic" enhancements, and the most realistic way I've seen "enhancements" in a tv show is on Numbers, but because when they enhance something, it takes days in the tv show, and they only get to the point where it was an outline or something.
Click to expand...
where it's most controversial is in the area of fingerprints.

Law enforcement gets some prints and scans them and analyzes them with the database. A program uses an algorithm to "match" to closest prints. Then the analyst compares them visually. A fingerprint match needs a set number of points to become a "match" before it can be introduced as evidence. The number varies from state to state. In your state, for example, a court might require 22 points of matching of the ridge counts, etc.

And then it becomes tacky...or controversial...or just plain wrong in some of our opinions: the analyst will then start to "enhance" (or massage depending on opinion) the fingerprint. Law enforcement experts, like your lovely FBI agent, will claim to the court and jury that they've only reduced the "noise" or the contrast to expose what is underlying in the picture. They haven' "added" anything, they'll argue, merely removed the extraneous data until the clear ridges become apparent.

Legal scholars, like myself, however argue the opposite. That in an infinite pool of fingerprint patterns in a pool of human beings, it's impossible to know whether the "clear" pattern was there to begin with or whether the analyst has accidentally (or worse, intentionally) manipulated the image until it matches the one the computer pulled up from the database of known offenders.
 
mope54 said:
where it's most controversial is in the area of fingerprints.

Law enforcement gets some prints and scans them and analyzes them with the database. A program uses an algorithm to "match" to closest prints. Then the analyst compares them visually. A fingerprint match needs a set number of points to become a "match" before it can be introduced as evidence. The number varies from state to state. In your state, for example, a court might require 22 points of matching of the ridge counts, etc.

And then it becomes tacky...or controversial...or just plain wrong in some of our opinions: the analyst will then start to "enhance" (or massage depending on opinion) the fingerprint. Law enforcement experts, like your lovely FBI agent, will claim to the court and jury that they've only reduced the "noise" or the contrast to expose what is underlying in the picture. They haven' "added" anything, they'll argue, merely removed the extraneous data until the clear ridges become apparent.

Legal scholars, like myself, however argue the opposite. That in an infinite pool of fingerprint patterns in a pool of human beings, it's impossible to know whether the "clear" pattern was there to begin with or whether the analyst has accidentally (or worse, intentionally) manipulated the image until it matches the one the computer pulled up from the database of known offenders.
Click to expand...

I have never believed in finger-prints being unique to one person, and I don't doubt that people make things look the way they want it to so it is in their favor.
 
scojer said:
I have never believed in finger-prints being unique to one person, and I don't doubt that people make things look the way they want it to so it is in their favor.
Click to expand...
good point, some of my colleagues have argued that. at the very least it's an unknown and I should have used "unknown pool" rather than "infinite pool"
 
mope54 said:
good point, some of my colleagues have argued that. at the very least it's an unknown and I should have used "unknown pool" rather than "infinite pool"
Click to expand...

I think that unknown and infinite could be interchangeable. If you have an infinite set of values, most of it will be unknown! Look at Pi.
 
I'm willing to give the original writer the benefit of the doubt, as poor a choice as that may be (stupid TV writers, lol). The context would totally make sense if "open source" were replaced by "torrented" or "downloaded" (you know which kind ;)). Making a reference to piracy probably wouldn't play well for such an IP protecting company, and the line may have been changed to something totally stupid like what aired.
 
mope54 said:
good point, some of my colleagues have argued that. at the very least it's an unknown and I should have used "unknown pool" rather than "infinite pool"
Click to expand...

Actually, the entropy in 22 points is quite well defined. ;)
 
if you find a print with 22 reference points then it would be difficult to argue against a strong likelihood of the match. if you lift a partial print, however, with 7 points and extrapolate the rest of the fingerprint via noise reduction and contrast manipulation there's a problem

if you're in law enforcement then you already know how unlikely it is to retrieve perfect prints. but also if you are in law enforcement you'd already know that I was simply using 22 reference points as a simplified example of the process so I wouldn't have to write a couple pages of how it actually works
 
(you're also taking that quote out of context. the "unknown" refers to how many unique fingerprint patterns exist among the human population *not* how many points of reference are necessary to establish a match)
 
Bojamijams said:
Remember, Walt Disney was a vocal anti-Semite and a big Mussolini supporter and very anti communist. So its not at all surprising that people he appointed to be in charge after his death carried on his indoctrinations... one of which would be .. open source = communism
Click to expand...

So Walt did hate jews or most likely the those crazy zionists fucktards among them, and that is enough for you to assume Disney corp. hates open software hahahahah. damn :D
 
All those nerdy asians and not a one of them could fix a virus issue?

BELIEF NOT SUSPENDED, ILLUSION NOT SEEN
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top