In terms of copyright infringement you can. Hormel for example will have the lawyers send people approval to use their copyright logo of SPAM when it is used in a way they like, the lawyers send this approval because the people are actually violating copyright so they are approving it to protect they rights, without having to fight positive use of their IP. However if used in a way they don't like and the person is using the IP illegally then they can sue the heck out of them for damages. Being the Alt-Right has twisted the IP to express an idea the created doesn't want, he could sue them.
It isn't open source, it is IP so the owner kept his rights on how the material is used.
Yea they lost their creditability by adding a feature that got voted in by a majority. You can't win all the time you need to get over it. Other then pouting about it, we need to see why without the layers on cynicism DRM was voted in. Because it seems to help solve some problems that they needed to have solved.
The EFF Resigning because they lost the vote on that particular issue, seems a bit extreme. Web Standards are still evolving and changing, without the EFF who will try to make sure future features which may step on our rights will not get implemented. DRM isn't an extreme feature, while it is against the ideas of Open Source and Freedom of information. In short DRM is the only reason why we have legal media streaming, and other services, which otherwise would be blocked, and any attempts to spread it will be attacked by an army of lawyers.
Now other than getting up an leaving in a huff because they didn't get their way, they should be asking themselves, what other alternatives to DRM is there that can address the concerns of the 58% who approved of it.
People are still buying it, I don't see anything out there to dethrone them.
Sure they may have good competition from Android, but at this point, either OS isn't different enough to really cause people to do a mass switch over. Unlike the release of the iPhone a decade ago where it offered a brand new device. We are now having competition of screen screens with touchscreens.
Umm so. You have an older device, and you really expect the new version to run on older devices? Mobile devices are rather optimized trying to keep all old platforms compatible with a new OS, is in general a bad idea.
So what is the problem? Why would Apple ask you or really anyone about changing the file system? For the most part for normal users and even most developers these changes are transparent. If you were doing something that complex where the file system mattered chances are you were doing it wrong.
There is always a way in. For Apples face ID that states there is a 1 in a million chance of breaking it. That means they are probably over 6,000 people in the world that could get into your phone with their face alone. And being that close relatives and people with similar generics often live closer by, so some of these 6,000 people may be rather close. Humans actually make worse assumptions when granting access to security. They can often be conned into thinking you are someone who you are not rather quickly. Being most effective hacks are social hacks where someone actively gives the bad guy access to their computers. Using text as part of the two factor authentication isn't as bad as most. Being that most security problems don't come from someone hacking into your account, but getting in the backdoor and getting your info that way. So the two factor with the text is probably good enough for rather secure methods to protect your account for sites that they wouldn't bother targeting just you. Just because if they stole a password table they wouldn't spend the time trying to hack the text response if they have a million more passwords to try.
However they Hyper-loop could have the right safeguards to safely stop. Vs and airplane which after a catastrophic failure will then fall thousands of feet. So if the explosion didn't kill you, the fall will. In a Hyper-loop an implosion would bring in air into the tube, allowing it to slow down. If there was an explosion in the pod, if anyone survived that then they at least won't need to deal with a massive fall.
And unlike trains, this is self contained so it will be difficult to derail.
However the question would be, compared to other technologies, even though immediate death of a catastrophic failure, would it be over all safer than other methods.
Every day over 3,000 people a day die in an automobile accident [Source] Which is nearly the number of people who died during 9/11 [Source]
Now if this technology can get people off the roads and onto safer transportation even if it means the probably of survival of an accident is much lower is still a much better for society.
We are fixated on the news So if we hear about a dozen people dying in one spot, it is a global tragedy where we have people morning and government investigations. But with a much larger number of people getting killed, spread out, we just don't really care, and just have it their fault.
Well to the point, it isn't that people can't resist the spread of technology, but technology has replaced previous technology.
We are not lamenting the days where we need to smash rocks together to start a fire, where we have easy access to matches or a lighter. Even the need to start a fire nowadays is usually more for recreational needs then for any practical ones.
We as animals have the needs to breath, stay hydrated, east substance, be in a climate where our body can maintain a constant temperature, and safe from harm.
We as humans have the need to communicate, learn, and generally have a degree of mental activity.
The modern smart phone, has replaced the need for a Personal Computer, and a Telephone, for much of our activities. However because of its popularity of its duel purpose. It has replaced other infrastructures that we had build to fill these needs. So these infrastructures are phased out, as not enough people are using them.
This doesn't mean we are actually dependent on such technologies. We can take away the cell phones from every person, and society can still function, however there will be some time having to rebuild the Public Phone system. We can learn to use old technology as well.
The problem is the ISP and the communication Infrastructure are one and the same. Back during the dial-up days, we had hundreds of ISPs in a single aria code, while AOL was the king, they were many ISPs who could provide internet access as well. Most of them were BBSs who added SLIP and/or PPP access. But this meant that if you wanted to connect to the internet you had 2 bills. Your phone line bill which pays for for the infrastructure, and your ISP where it was the gateway to the Internet.
Now with broadband, as a necessary standard we normally pay a company who controls the wires and the service. In rural areas you may have only one choice usually Cable or DSL. But once you get the communication infrastructure you also have to rely on the whims of the same company for hosting the ISP.
Now governments local, state and federal have a slew of laws around these, because this infrastructure is rather invasive. Running across private property. So even if you were to start you own company you will still need to be politically involved to try to get these laws changed so you can be allowed to distribute your service to your customer base.
This isn't about being whiny liberals, (as the conservatives whine complain and demand they must be treated like special snowflakes on different topics) but needing to protest a system that isn't treating the public fairly. Yes political protesters tend to come with stupid arguments and often over simplify the problem. But it difficult to post a 300 page thesis on the complexity of the problems, vs just saying AT&T is trying to kill your you tube Chanel.
For the good old boring B2B (Business to Business) software. Normally you can give away the software but pay for consulting and support services to keep it running. As the product is sufficiently complex enough that your expertise as the creator will be able to help customers implement it.
Other approaches is having the software in the cloud, where people pay for the software as a service.
Other approaches is if you could get some sort of grant for development. A company/government/Not for Profit may pay you to make this software for them, as they may need it for their business however don't really wish to sell it, as software may not be their business.
However when ever you get funding from a different group you loose your creative freedom. Because if they are paying your bills it needs to be done their way.
More to the point how much of this is automated. The problem with these adaptive and learning systems is they pickup trends without any moral background. And the size of google it is nearly impossible to to monitor everything.
Being nearly every human probably has a moral failing often this moral failing they don't realize and often celibate it. Makes it difficult to code a bias moral engine.
Most racist vindicat themselves with some logic, often saying that they are unfairly targeted, or the groups they hate are getting it too easy. Or such groups are some how more dangerous then the normal population. Then reinforce it with other historical or religious presence.
Next year Samsung will have a faster phone with better specs. The year after that Apple will. In general if you are happy with your mobile and you want to upgrade. Wait for the next model and it will be sufficiently upgraded for the times. Feel free to feel happy about your purchase. As you have purchased a product with the features you wanted and performance you needed at the price you were willing to pay.
Just don't expect everyone to want the same thing. It is a freaking phone not a major life changing decision.
When you have a device without any user replaceable parts, you really cannot guarantee a product more than a year. As they are hundreds of parts which could fail, causing a full failure. That said, Most people own devices that will last well beyond that guarantee. A guarantee, is just formality to make sure the devices doesn't come with faulty parts. Much like the old 48 hour burn in rule for a PC. If the parts last over a year then they will probably last much longer. However Apple is in the game for money. After the 1 year mark, good components could die out from excessive usage, thus having a guarantee after that will cut into their bottom line.
So if you are running a full website off your phone... And you burn out the Wi-Fi after a full year, that really should be your fault.
All sounds good in theory. But if there is 1% of the people out of the millions of transactions requesting more than 100 rows that will still be thousands of requests that need approval. The supervises will get fatigued at the request and just blanket approve them.
Medical Doctors and Nurses are often well trained at diagnosing problems. The artist may be able to look at the problem with a different angle to prevent people from starting at the same line of code. A tribal leader would have leadership experience to direct the right people and right number to help solve the problem
If the company hires similar people chances are they will be staring at the wrong line of code or both trying to fix it with the same approach.
Why would a Nurse or an Artist wouldn't be a White guy?
In that case, why don't they make their own product.
Often there is just as much time and effort to review code, of a complex application, then it would take a dev team to build an app customized to the actual business need, vs using a general purpose software.
However there is a problem with being too aggressive. Proper Security it tough, if you are going to be 100% secure then chances are you will not be able to perform your business. However there needs to be rules to make sure the company is putting in its best effort into security. If we find that there was a someone who tried to raise flags about security, where management declined because it was too expensive then there should be repercussion. But if there are reasonable checks in place, you shouldn't kill the company just because there was a flaw.
If your job is a Software Developer or some sort of engineer. Even if you are an ace at your job. Chances are you could had made a mistake, do you think you deserve to have your life and career killed, because of one bad day.
What you can't believe software that happens to be released with an Open Source license could have a security vulnerability.
Granted I expect the flaw is more then just a flaw in the software, but poor network design, excessive trust in the application and/or poor implementation.
But people who just scoff at the idea that Open Source is this just ultra secure system, will often implement it in a poor manor making it vulnerable. Because of a zealot faith in the holy license.
How the product is licensed doesn't affect the quality of the software. If the software is of significant complexity, then chances are flaws will be there, and often just like commercial licences software a flaw can be overlooked by many eyes, until the flaw is found.
That could be the case. Google like to hire a large subset of like minded people. Someone with a different set of experience and life lessons, may had seen this problem beforehand and been able to fix it. Vs Google hiring kids who pass the IQ tests and are excited about the new and cool. Who just doesn't realize that there is always a single point of failure that needs to be addressed.
I know at my work environment which is very diverse, they are many different approaches to problems that allows us to handle things more thoroughly. The young guy has fresh new ideas to problems, the older guy has experience to know where the problems are to the ideas, and can point out that this new idea was already tried. The person with more experience with dealing with politics, can determine if the idea will get past management or not. Then there is a person who will document everything.
Slashdot Mirror
In terms of copyright infringement you can. Hormel for example will have the lawyers send people approval to use their copyright logo of SPAM when it is used in a way they like, the lawyers send this approval because the people are actually violating copyright so they are approving it to protect they rights, without having to fight positive use of their IP. However if used in a way they don't like and the person is using the IP illegally then they can sue the heck out of them for damages.
Being the Alt-Right has twisted the IP to express an idea the created doesn't want, he could sue them.
It isn't open source, it is IP so the owner kept his rights on how the material is used.
Yea they lost their creditability by adding a feature that got voted in by a majority. You can't win all the time you need to get over it. Other then pouting about it, we need to see why without the layers on cynicism DRM was voted in. Because it seems to help solve some problems that they needed to have solved.
The EFF Resigning because they lost the vote on that particular issue, seems a bit extreme. Web Standards are still evolving and changing, without the EFF who will try to make sure future features which may step on our rights will not get implemented.
DRM isn't an extreme feature, while it is against the ideas of Open Source and Freedom of information. In short DRM is the only reason why we have legal media streaming, and other services, which otherwise would be blocked, and any attempts to spread it will be attacked by an army of lawyers.
Now other than getting up an leaving in a huff because they didn't get their way, they should be asking themselves, what other alternatives to DRM is there that can address the concerns of the 58% who approved of it.
People are still buying it, I don't see anything out there to dethrone them.
Sure they may have good competition from Android, but at this point, either OS isn't different enough to really cause people to do a mass switch over. Unlike the release of the iPhone a decade ago where it offered a brand new device. We are now having competition of screen screens with touchscreens.
Umm so. You have an older device, and you really expect the new version to run on older devices? Mobile devices are rather optimized trying to keep all old platforms compatible with a new OS, is in general a bad idea.
So what is the problem?
Why would Apple ask you or really anyone about changing the file system?
For the most part for normal users and even most developers these changes are transparent. If you were doing something that complex where the file system mattered chances are you were doing it wrong.
There is always a way in. For Apples face ID that states there is a 1 in a million chance of breaking it. That means they are probably over 6,000 people in the world that could get into your phone with their face alone. And being that close relatives and people with similar generics often live closer by, so some of these 6,000 people may be rather close.
Humans actually make worse assumptions when granting access to security. They can often be conned into thinking you are someone who you are not rather quickly. Being most effective hacks are social hacks where someone actively gives the bad guy access to their computers.
Using text as part of the two factor authentication isn't as bad as most. Being that most security problems don't come from someone hacking into your account, but getting in the backdoor and getting your info that way. So the two factor with the text is probably good enough for rather secure methods to protect your account for sites that they wouldn't bother targeting just you. Just because if they stole a password table they wouldn't spend the time trying to hack the text response if they have a million more passwords to try.
We all lost. And we need to do something about it.
Last year I would have agreed with you. This year I am not so sure that.
However they Hyper-loop could have the right safeguards to safely stop. Vs and airplane which after a catastrophic failure will then fall thousands of feet. So if the explosion didn't kill you, the fall will. In a Hyper-loop an implosion would bring in air into the tube, allowing it to slow down. If there was an explosion in the pod, if anyone survived that then they at least won't need to deal with a massive fall.
And unlike trains, this is self contained so it will be difficult to derail.
However the question would be, compared to other technologies, even though immediate death of a catastrophic failure, would it be over all safer than other methods.
Every day over 3,000 people a day die in an automobile accident [Source]
Which is nearly the number of people who died during 9/11 [Source]
Now if this technology can get people off the roads and onto safer transportation even if it means the probably of survival of an accident is much lower is still a much better for society.
We are fixated on the news So if we hear about a dozen people dying in one spot, it is a global tragedy where we have people morning and government investigations. But with a much larger number of people getting killed, spread out, we just don't really care, and just have it their fault.
Well to the point, it isn't that people can't resist the spread of technology, but technology has replaced previous technology.
We are not lamenting the days where we need to smash rocks together to start a fire, where we have easy access to matches or a lighter. Even the need to start a fire nowadays is usually more for recreational needs then for any practical ones.
We as animals have the needs to breath, stay hydrated, east substance, be in a climate where our body can maintain a constant temperature, and safe from harm.
We as humans have the need to communicate, learn, and generally have a degree of mental activity.
The modern smart phone, has replaced the need for a Personal Computer, and a Telephone, for much of our activities. However because of its popularity of its duel purpose. It has replaced other infrastructures that we had build to fill these needs. So these infrastructures are phased out, as not enough people are using them.
This doesn't mean we are actually dependent on such technologies. We can take away the cell phones from every person, and society can still function, however there will be some time having to rebuild the Public Phone system. We can learn to use old technology as well.
The problem is the ISP and the communication Infrastructure are one and the same.
Back during the dial-up days, we had hundreds of ISPs in a single aria code, while AOL was the king, they were many ISPs who could provide internet access as well. Most of them were BBSs who added SLIP and/or PPP access.
But this meant that if you wanted to connect to the internet you had 2 bills. Your phone line bill which pays for for the infrastructure, and your ISP where it was the gateway to the Internet.
Now with broadband, as a necessary standard we normally pay a company who controls the wires and the service. In rural areas you may have only one choice usually Cable or DSL. But once you get the communication infrastructure you also have to rely on the whims of the same company for hosting the ISP.
Now governments local, state and federal have a slew of laws around these, because this infrastructure is rather invasive. Running across private property. So even if you were to start you own company you will still need to be politically involved to try to get these laws changed so you can be allowed to distribute your service to your customer base.
This isn't about being whiny liberals, (as the conservatives whine complain and demand they must be treated like special snowflakes on different topics) but needing to protest a system that isn't treating the public fairly.
Yes political protesters tend to come with stupid arguments and often over simplify the problem. But it difficult to post a 300 page thesis on the complexity of the problems, vs just saying AT&T is trying to kill your you tube Chanel.
Different models work for different software.
For the good old boring B2B (Business to Business) software. Normally you can give away the software but pay for consulting and support services to keep it running. As the product is sufficiently complex enough that your expertise as the creator will be able to help customers implement it.
Other approaches is having the software in the cloud, where people pay for the software as a service.
Other approaches is if you could get some sort of grant for development. A company/government/Not for Profit may pay you to make this software for them, as they may need it for their business however don't really wish to sell it, as software may not be their business.
However when ever you get funding from a different group you loose your creative freedom. Because if they are paying your bills it needs to be done their way.
More to the point how much of this is automated.
The problem with these adaptive and learning systems is they pickup trends without any moral background. And the size of google it is nearly impossible to to monitor everything.
Being nearly every human probably has a moral failing often this moral failing they don't realize and often celibate it. Makes it difficult to code a bias moral engine.
Most racist vindicat themselves with some logic, often saying that they are unfairly targeted, or the groups they hate are getting it too easy. Or such groups are some how more dangerous then the normal population. Then reinforce it with other historical or religious presence.
Next year Samsung will have a faster phone with better specs. The year after that Apple will.
In general if you are happy with your mobile and you want to upgrade. Wait for the next model and it will be sufficiently upgraded for the times.
Feel free to feel happy about your purchase. As you have purchased a product with the features you wanted and performance you needed at the price you were willing to pay.
Just don't expect everyone to want the same thing. It is a freaking phone not a major life changing decision.
When you have a device without any user replaceable parts, you really cannot guarantee a product more than a year. As they are hundreds of parts which could fail, causing a full failure. That said, Most people own devices that will last well beyond that guarantee. A guarantee, is just formality to make sure the devices doesn't come with faulty parts. Much like the old 48 hour burn in rule for a PC. If the parts last over a year then they will probably last much longer. However Apple is in the game for money. After the 1 year mark, good components could die out from excessive usage, thus having a guarantee after that will cut into their bottom line.
So if you are running a full website off your phone... And you burn out the Wi-Fi after a full year, that really should be your fault.
All sounds good in theory. But if there is 1% of the people out of the millions of transactions requesting more than 100 rows that will still be thousands of requests that need approval. The supervises will get fatigued at the request and just blanket approve them.
Medical Doctors and Nurses are often well trained at diagnosing problems.
The artist may be able to look at the problem with a different angle to prevent people from starting at the same line of code.
A tribal leader would have leadership experience to direct the right people and right number to help solve the problem
If the company hires similar people chances are they will be staring at the wrong line of code or both trying to fix it with the same approach.
Why would a Nurse or an Artist wouldn't be a White guy?
In that case, why don't they make their own product.
Often there is just as much time and effort to review code, of a complex application, then it would take a dev team to build an app customized to the actual business need, vs using a general purpose software.
However there is a problem with being too aggressive.
Proper Security it tough, if you are going to be 100% secure then chances are you will not be able to perform your business. However there needs to be rules to make sure the company is putting in its best effort into security. If we find that there was a someone who tried to raise flags about security, where management declined because it was too expensive then there should be repercussion. But if there are reasonable checks in place, you shouldn't kill the company just because there was a flaw.
If your job is a Software Developer or some sort of engineer. Even if you are an ace at your job. Chances are you could had made a mistake, do you think you deserve to have your life and career killed, because of one bad day.
What you can't believe software that happens to be released with an Open Source license could have a security vulnerability.
Granted I expect the flaw is more then just a flaw in the software, but poor network design, excessive trust in the application and/or poor implementation.
But people who just scoff at the idea that Open Source is this just ultra secure system, will often implement it in a poor manor making it vulnerable. Because of a zealot faith in the holy license.
How the product is licensed doesn't affect the quality of the software.
If the software is of significant complexity, then chances are flaws will be there, and often just like commercial licences software a flaw can be overlooked by many eyes, until the flaw is found.
.9 hours
That could be the case. Google like to hire a large subset of like minded people.
Someone with a different set of experience and life lessons, may had seen this problem beforehand and been able to fix it. Vs Google hiring kids who pass the IQ tests and are excited about the new and cool. Who just doesn't realize that there is always a single point of failure that needs to be addressed.
I know at my work environment which is very diverse, they are many different approaches to problems that allows us to handle things more thoroughly.
The young guy has fresh new ideas to problems, the older guy has experience to know where the problems are to the ideas, and can point out that this new idea was already tried. The person with more experience with dealing with politics, can determine if the idea will get past management or not. Then there is a person who will document everything.