So, perhaps it depends on other factors.. but that idiotic camel seemd to have brought many a teenager into that cancer-inducing habit quite successfully using "cartoons" or in the least a cartoonish character...
The good: as a tool to conveniently record crime or emergency. (in addition to quotidian snapshot use)
The bad: abuse/invasion of privacy.
neither: as tool to do work (as an evidentiary tool recording what one has done or has observed in a job role)
So, the variable is intent.
Still, there is the time necessary to get to the hostile. So it would make the hostile have to move after having discharged -an inconvenience. In addition, a hostile could set-up decoys (others to shoot semi-randomly), disguise the sound, etc. Or maybe this puppy has filters which are able to discard the decoys and added sounds from the one of interest.
"Ladies and Gentlemen, if you look out the starboard side of the aircraft you will notice a trail of smoke and detonation smoke. That's from a thwarted missile attack on this vessel. If we hadn't been equipped with the anti-missile system right now we'd be in a different world now."
Just thought I'd let you know. Hope you enjoy your flight, please think of us when you fly again. Enjoy the peanuts. This is the captain speaking"
Back on track... Better to have the system than not, especially in "hot" areas of the world.
The sad thing is that many haven't got an admin password configured.
And then thse things have u-webservers built-in. Dunno if anyone's made a useful hack of the web-end on these printers but it's possible.
The methods of fraud might be different, but the real question is what is the impact on the election(s) overall? Which method produces a more accurate count? When electronic voting proves more reliable it should be adopted as such.
The banking system is based on computers (and thedre aren't many examples of exploiting the system --sure there is oversight by the account-bearer but the point is the errors are small overall). The major kinks in the electronic banking system have been worked out; they shall be worked out of electronic voting too --eventually.
Inaccuracies will exist be it because of improper use, tampering, rigging, etc., but they shall be overall inconsequential and thus render the system effective.
But a voting computer is one that computes votes (not so much a computer that has a right to vote and then so votes). So, it's a bit of an ambiguous term.
Yes, this is a blow, but in the end, electronic voting will overcome the shortcomings and the missteps and become they way to cast one's ballot. While there are presently insecurites and faults in the machines those will eventually be minimized so that they become more reliable and less fallible than traditional voting methods (which of course are less than infallible --but many don't want to acknowlewdge that.)
Subdued response from Ballmer
on
iPhone Roundup
·
· Score: 1
Do you think that if Microsoft had had this product they would have been ho-hum about it? Do you think he'd be saying, well, "Our phone is okay, but there are better"? No, he'd be extolling the greatness, the features, the "innovation", etc.. He'd say that it would burry the rest of the industry, etc. He's probably wondering why can't he (MS) and its partners not make something as appealing as what Apple does?
For the most part I'd agree. It should be freely accessible --to a point, depending on many criteria. But free to whom, the whole world or only to the citizens of the goverment governing the taxed citizens (their money) in question or any denizen of the world? How would we keep it from getting into thte wrong hands?
And what about publicly funded high-technology? The sort that other countries with less cash or resources go about doing industrial espionage for.
Let's say the feds fund some ultra-secret (say, weapons) research at various national laboratories. Should that research be available to thine enemy -or even to the general citizenry amongst whom might live some reckless individuals who think they know what's best for them or their followers?
The French buttonmakers were wary of being undersold and made redundant by cheaper methods/producers. The **AA are keen to protect the way their product is distributed and used. They may wish but cannot prosecute other artists/publishers from publishing content w/o DRM or anything else. What they want to do or keep is their own product from being distributed against their will. That is, to be against it being virtually freely duplicated and/or redistributed w/o compensation to them. One might not like their greed, but it's greed for their product -the one they have rights to by law. The **AA are not persuing other people from giving giving or distributing their own stuff in their own way. the French buttonmakers were against others competing against them in ways that undersold them or made them redundant.
I just think it's interesting but a different situation altogether.
Licensing schemes are in essence a form or rights management. One does not go about as an entity violating the license solely to take it as one's own and doing as one pleases with a bit of software. There are law-related repercussions if one were to violate the licenses in software if the licesor sees it fit to persue the infringer. There are restrictions one needs to abide by
I'll agree here with parent. This is not a life or death situation. Water -a renewable resource- is restriced in use. It is metered. Don't pay and your service is cut. So long as DRM is not dictated to be necessary by government it should be tenable. If DRM become cumbersome another scheme should usurp and take its place and make DRM the bastard child. It would be natural. While I can see reasoning in the arguments against DRM, I don't see DRM as being inherently immoral. It takes control away from the user and in most cases puts it in the control of the works publisher. Good, bad, neutral?
Yes, but the thing is the artist could let the art lapse into public domain if they desired it so. If they didn't let it then, well, it'd be forgotten like many other works of ancient times. (You don't think that the Greeks and others wrote all works down or that they all survived over time.)
Furthermore, you still haven't put the genie back in the bottle, it's still out, but you have deactivated private digital copies of the genie. For example: if you posted an anti-semitic video message on YouTube, the people who saw it will still remember it, and their comments talking about it will still exist. Don't forget that the analog hole still exists too - I can point a camera at my screen and record your video therefore bypassing your restrictions.
I din't mean to imply this would happen tomorrow but a decade or two from now when certainly things could be watermarked (and recognized) appropriately and furthermore most vehicles of media would be connected one way or another. Given IPv6 it's not impossible.
And what would be wrong with being able to revoke/retrive an embarassing video or soundbite? what about someone as a teen who does some misdeeds as a teen? In this system that trangression would not come back to bite him/her (except for those who have that knowledge in memory (what are friends for but to know our secrets anyway?)
To answer someone's question posed before: Politicians and anyone working for the govermnet would be exempt from this "purging" aspect. That is, they would not be able to retrieve/revoke things said or performed as an agent of government as that would automatically be for public domain.
Um, no. We still can read the writings of people who wrote books 1000 years ago, or painted pictures, etc. While we can't enjoy original performances of Shakespeare plays, we have the manuscripts to enable modern performances. Your "idea" is worse than no technology at all. If Shakespeare's works were in time-bombed e-book form only, they would be lost to the world.
Initially I had in mind performance art, but I can see this applicable to non-ephemeral art in some ways too but not all.
In addition, I see where there would be room for remedy for those whose art purchase was revoked. Artists would have to reimburse the prorated amount owed the consumer.
1 . My idea was extreme in the sense that the artists retained complete control --technologically speaking, of their works. I didn't propose a way for people to forget the media/performance. Surely the audience and any artist amongst them would be able to listen and see any art and build upon it just as Shakespeare, for instance, and many others in history did in the manner of oral tradition. I only proposed total artist control DRM in the digital/technological sense not in the sense of people's memory. Satire, etc. existed way back when the stylus was the greatest technological achievement. It would nor be stifled.
2. You bring up some good problems brought by point no. 1. Yet, it might be that many direct producers of digital media would not mind the analog reproduction of their works (just as oral tradition in the past was wrtitten down by a writer (one who writes --not one who authors) Besides, faithful non-derivative reproduction would require citation/acknowledgement to avoid plagiarism, etc.
3. It need not by necessity require invasion of privacy. Moreover, it would be up to the artists to subscribe to and implement this on their works. You are arguing from the point of view that the consumer has more rights over a work than the artist who produced the work to begin with. If the consumer objected to this model they could very well choose among alternative mediums.
In addition, the system need not be real-time. One could work on a sort of acknowledgement system where whenever the medium carrying/holding the DRMed payload need to check on the live status of a work occasionally and remain unchanged or change depending on the status.
With IPV6 and most gadgets becoming connected to the internetwork it becomes less of an abstract concept and closer to possibility. It is not feasable today, but what about 10 or 20 years from now? Why not give all authors almost complete control over their works? How many artsis wish they could take back a song or a performance but due to technological limitations can't? Yes, some art would be lost into oblivion forevermore but an artist as an author is the one who decides whether or not to make something public in the first place. Why not allow them to revoke the art after the fact, if technically feasable? Why should we assume that the consumer of art has the foremost rights to something they did not create?
Right now it is the media companies and the consumers who hold the most power. The initial artist has little control over their creations. What's wrong with giving them control back? PS. artist is not synonymous to multimillion-dollar artists. I mean anyone who creates art --including those who earn millions.
Well, let's take out the recording and movie making industries, and now let us imagine that everyone who produces or would produce media can do so and does do so by themselves (without industry intermediaries.) Then imagine that there be a system that allowed the publishing artist to exactly and precisely control how their content was used and or was available so that the publishing artist could revoke something they put out there but for whatever reason now regret. What would be wrong with that? It would be total control in the hand of an artist. Afterall, it is their work. Why not give them ultimate control?
Imagine an idiot posts something he or she later regrets to the web. It's foreseable that some of them would wish to recall/revoke/delete what they posted to the Internet. Today there is no way to put the "genie" back inthe bottle. If there were a total artist control type of rights management this idiot could retrieve (forever extinghuish the existence) the now-regrettable work posted to the Internet.
Let's say that the audience never had ownership but simply could make micropayments (in the case of for profit works --not the stuff posted to the internet for free --that would still be free but still bound by the total rights management system) to listen or see content. That could be say for a one-off experience of for a bulk experience. What would be wrong with such a scenario? (that is if controlled by each artist themselves?) No industry to deride and loathe. Only artists with infinite control over their works. If the artist were to die then it could be had that all their content die too.
Would that be too much control in the artists' hands? It'd be like it was before technology, in the sense that the artist'd control all aspects of their fruits. Their fruits lived and died with them. the audience never had ownership of the artists' work. They only had the pleasure and priviledge to listen, see and enjoy in the moment.
I could further imagine that an artist could forgo their rights if they so desired. Or the rights to work not recalled/revoked could pass into public domain, etc. There could be a great number of permutations
Yes, but the point is no one knew what the feature set was going to be with any certainty of being right. You might compare rumors about Apple products to words in a brute-force dictionary password attack. Eventually one for the guesses might be right. It does not imply that anyone (other than principals) knew what the password was (or in this case what the product specs, etc. were going to be.
While Mr. Wu and many other analysts who scour the supply chains for hints of what might come had an idea that an Apple phone device was almost certainly imminent; no one outside the loop knew what the specifications, configurations, capabilities, software, interface (soft and hard) were going to be to a reasonable degree. Surely, many people guessed at the features. Some people actually got some right; many got them wrong but no-one got it all right. Most guessed incorrectly and were working from obscurity and not from secret, in-the-know information. It was predominantly wild-guessing. Therefore it can be asseted as a secret. If one guesses enough one is apt to guess right. Isn't that what brute-force password attacks are about? One cannot claim that hackers knew one's secret password only because they were able to discover that a password existed and then were able to gain it by brute-force attack. I think it can be classified as having been an unqualified bona-fide industrial secret to the extent they were able to keep the details about the device at large from the press and the public and even their competitors.
Parent is not a troll. Parent is simply making rhetorical comparisons to obviate the initial question. To label parent troll is to be lazy and easily annoyed and shows dislike for dissonance.
Slashdot Mirror
So, perhaps it depends on other factors.. but that idiotic camel seemd to have brought many a teenager into that cancer-inducing habit quite successfully using "cartoons" or in the least a cartoonish character...
As most reckon that Google does no evil!
Short of that, I dunno, maybe they go to Valhalla, heofan, paradisum, or they join a heap of rubbish in China.
The good: as a tool to conveniently record crime or emergency. (in addition to quotidian snapshot use) The bad: abuse/invasion of privacy. neither: as tool to do work (as an evidentiary tool recording what one has done or has observed in a job role) So, the variable is intent.
Still, there is the time necessary to get to the hostile. So it would make the hostile have to move after having discharged -an inconvenience. In addition, a hostile could set-up decoys (others to shoot semi-randomly), disguise the sound, etc. Or maybe this puppy has filters which are able to discard the decoys and added sounds from the one of interest.
"Ladies and Gentlemen, if you look out the starboard side of the aircraft you will notice a trail of smoke and detonation smoke. That's from a thwarted missile attack on this vessel. If we hadn't been equipped with the anti-missile system right now we'd be in a different world now."
Just thought I'd let you know. Hope you enjoy your flight, please think of us when you fly again. Enjoy the peanuts. This is the captain speaking"
Back on track... Better to have the system than not, especially in "hot" areas of the world.The sad thing is that many haven't got an admin password configured. And then thse things have u-webservers built-in. Dunno if anyone's made a useful hack of the web-end on these printers but it's possible.
The methods of fraud might be different, but the real question is what is the impact on the election(s) overall? Which method produces a more accurate count? When electronic voting proves more reliable it should be adopted as such.
The banking system is based on computers (and thedre aren't many examples of exploiting the system --sure there is oversight by the account-bearer but the point is the errors are small overall). The major kinks in the electronic banking system have been worked out; they shall be worked out of electronic voting too --eventually.
Inaccuracies will exist be it because of improper use, tampering, rigging, etc., but they shall be overall inconsequential and thus render the system effective.
But a voting computer is one that computes votes (not so much a computer that has a right to vote and then so votes). So, it's a bit of an ambiguous term.
Yes, this is a blow, but in the end, electronic voting will overcome the shortcomings and the missteps and become they way to cast one's ballot. While there are presently insecurites and faults in the machines those will eventually be minimized so that they become more reliable and less fallible than traditional voting methods (which of course are less than infallible --but many don't want to acknowlewdge that.)
Do you think that if Microsoft had had this product they would have been ho-hum about it? Do you think he'd be saying, well, "Our phone is okay, but there are better"? No, he'd be extolling the greatness, the features, the "innovation", etc.. He'd say that it would burry the rest of the industry, etc. He's probably wondering why can't he (MS) and its partners not make something as appealing as what Apple does?
For the most part I'd agree. It should be freely accessible --to a point, depending on many criteria. But free to whom, the whole world or only to the citizens of the goverment governing the taxed citizens (their money) in question or any denizen of the world? How would we keep it from getting into thte wrong hands?
And what about publicly funded high-technology? The sort that other countries with less cash or resources go about doing industrial espionage for.
Let's say the feds fund some ultra-secret (say, weapons) research at various national laboratories. Should that research be available to thine enemy -or even to the general citizenry amongst whom might live some reckless individuals who think they know what's best for them or their followers?
The French buttonmakers were wary of being undersold and made redundant by cheaper methods/producers. The **AA are keen to protect the way their product is distributed and used. They may wish but cannot prosecute other artists/publishers from publishing content w/o DRM or anything else. What they want to do or keep is their own product from being distributed against their will. That is, to be against it being virtually freely duplicated and/or redistributed w/o compensation to them. One might not like their greed, but it's greed for their product -the one they have rights to by law. The **AA are not persuing other people from giving giving or distributing their own stuff in their own way. the French buttonmakers were against others competing against them in ways that undersold them or made them redundant.
I just think it's interesting but a different situation altogether.Licensing schemes are in essence a form or rights management. One does not go about as an entity violating the license solely to take it as one's own and doing as one pleases with a bit of software. There are law-related repercussions if one were to violate the licenses in software if the licesor sees it fit to persue the infringer. There are restrictions one needs to abide by
I'll agree here with parent. This is not a life or death situation. Water -a renewable resource- is restriced in use. It is metered. Don't pay and your service is cut. So long as DRM is not dictated to be necessary by government it should be tenable. If DRM become cumbersome another scheme should usurp and take its place and make DRM the bastard child. It would be natural. While I can see reasoning in the arguments against DRM, I don't see DRM as being inherently immoral. It takes control away from the user and in most cases puts it in the control of the works publisher. Good, bad, neutral?
How many times is this hengest going to be beaten to death again?
/. should just put up a game consoles shipped:/sold: ticker at the top. No need for daily update-fodder-cum-articles
And what would be wrong with being able to revoke/retrive an embarassing video or soundbite? what about someone as a teen who does some misdeeds as a teen? In this system that trangression would not come back to bite him/her (except for those who have that knowledge in memory (what are friends for but to know our secrets anyway?)
To answer someone's question posed before: Politicians and anyone working for the govermnet would be exempt from this "purging" aspect. That is, they would not be able to retrieve/revoke things said or performed as an agent of government as that would automatically be for public domain.
Initially I had in mind performance art, but I can see this applicable to non-ephemeral art in some ways too but not all. In addition, I see where there would be room for remedy for those whose art purchase was revoked. Artists would have to reimburse the prorated amount owed the consumer.1 . My idea was extreme in the sense that the artists retained complete control --technologically speaking, of their works. I didn't propose a way for people to forget the media/performance. Surely the audience and any artist amongst them would be able to listen and see any art and build upon it just as Shakespeare, for instance, and many others in history did in the manner of oral tradition. I only proposed total artist control DRM in the digital/technological sense not in the sense of people's memory. Satire, etc. existed way back when the stylus was the greatest technological achievement. It would nor be stifled.
2. You bring up some good problems brought by point no. 1. Yet, it might be that many direct producers of digital media would not mind the analog reproduction of their works (just as oral tradition in the past was wrtitten down by a writer (one who writes --not one who authors) Besides, faithful non-derivative reproduction would require citation/acknowledgement to avoid plagiarism, etc.
3. It need not by necessity require invasion of privacy. Moreover, it would be up to the artists to subscribe to and implement this on their works. You are arguing from the point of view that the consumer has more rights over a work than the artist who produced the work to begin with. If the consumer objected to this model they could very well choose among alternative mediums. In addition, the system need not be real-time. One could work on a sort of acknowledgement system where whenever the medium carrying/holding the DRMed payload need to check on the live status of a work occasionally and remain unchanged or change depending on the status.
With IPV6 and most gadgets becoming connected to the internetwork it becomes less of an abstract concept and closer to possibility. It is not feasable today, but what about 10 or 20 years from now? Why not give all authors almost complete control over their works? How many artsis wish they could take back a song or a performance but due to technological limitations can't? Yes, some art would be lost into oblivion forevermore but an artist as an author is the one who decides whether or not to make something public in the first place. Why not allow them to revoke the art after the fact, if technically feasable? Why should we assume that the consumer of art has the foremost rights to something they did not create?
Right now it is the media companies and the consumers who hold the most power. The initial artist has little control over their creations. What's wrong with giving them control back? PS. artist is not synonymous to multimillion-dollar artists. I mean anyone who creates art --including those who earn millions.
Imagine an idiot posts something he or she later regrets to the web. It's foreseable that some of them would wish to recall/revoke/delete what they posted to the Internet. Today there is no way to put the "genie" back inthe bottle. If there were a total artist control type of rights management this idiot could retrieve (forever extinghuish the existence) the now-regrettable work posted to the Internet.
Let's say that the audience never had ownership but simply could make micropayments (in the case of for profit works --not the stuff posted to the internet for free --that would still be free but still bound by the total rights management system) to listen or see content. That could be say for a one-off experience of for a bulk experience. What would be wrong with such a scenario? (that is if controlled by each artist themselves?) No industry to deride and loathe. Only artists with infinite control over their works. If the artist were to die then it could be had that all their content die too.
Would that be too much control in the artists' hands? It'd be like it was before technology, in the sense that the artist'd control all aspects of their fruits. Their fruits lived and died with them. the audience never had ownership of the artists' work. They only had the pleasure and priviledge to listen, see and enjoy in the moment.
I could further imagine that an artist could forgo their rights if they so desired. Or the rights to work not recalled/revoked could pass into public domain, etc. There could be a great number of permutations
an idea....Yes, but the point is no one knew what the feature set was going to be with any certainty of being right. You might compare rumors about Apple products to words in a brute-force dictionary password attack. Eventually one for the guesses might be right. It does not imply that anyone (other than principals) knew what the password was (or in this case what the product specs, etc. were going to be.
While Mr. Wu and many other analysts who scour the supply chains for hints of what might come had an idea that an Apple phone device was almost certainly imminent; no one outside the loop knew what the specifications, configurations, capabilities, software, interface (soft and hard) were going to be to a reasonable degree. Surely, many people guessed at the features. Some people actually got some right; many got them wrong but no-one got it all right. Most guessed incorrectly and were working from obscurity and not from secret, in-the-know information. It was predominantly wild-guessing. Therefore it can be asseted as a secret. If one guesses enough one is apt to guess right.
Isn't that what brute-force password attacks are about? One cannot claim that hackers knew one's secret password only because they were able to discover that a password existed and then were able to gain it by brute-force attack.
I think it can be classified as having been an unqualified bona-fide industrial secret to the extent they were able to keep the details about the device at large from the press and the public and even their competitors.
Parent is not a troll. Parent is simply making rhetorical comparisons to obviate the initial question. To label parent troll is to be lazy and easily annoyed and shows dislike for dissonance.