2. How do you expect to dessiminate this database securely and guarantee unauthorized access? Hint: It's not possible, though a very small network of users could reduce such risk. Actually, guaranteeing unauthorised access is the default. In my experience the best way to stop it from happening is to specify that it should happen.
The only people who fear this type of genetic fingerprinting and criminals and paranoids. Maybe. Provided the only people who have access to the data are completely competent and completely benign. Maybe you believe the latter of your government, but do you believe the former?
Heck even the BNP is to the left of all the US parties. I wasn't aware of any of the major US parties campaigning on a policy of repatriation of all non-whites to the homelands of their ancestors:
"We will end immigration to the UK and reduce our land's population burden by creating firm but voluntary incentives for immigrants and their descendants to return home." (http://www.bnp.org.uk/candidates2005/manifesto/ma nf15.htm, my emphasis.)
Except they have some DNA evidence that points to you. And in the eyes of most juries, DNA is the magic bullet for a prosecutor. According to TV, DNA is alway 100% sure that you are the father.
Actually, that would be according to science... Er, no. It could be your identical twin. And as for DNA evidence, which could have been mishandled, mislabelled or subject to any number of other human errors, that's certainly not 100%.
If you mean by "never dropped" that it's never ignored completely then you should be right. If you mean that it doesn't figure into the overall set of compromises that go into designing something, well tough. I doubt there's any system that couldn't be made safer by throwing some more money at it, but there comes a point where that just doesn't make sense any more. The point may be set by a cost-benefit analysis, by safety regulations or by your insurers, but it's there whichever way it comes.
I thought the free market was supposed to achieve that?;-)
Here in the UK, a charger for my phone costs between £20 and £25 from the various mobile phone shops, but a "universal" charger, which fits all the phones in the family except for my son's Sharp, cost less that £7 in a supermarket. Seems to work fine.
If it's a change that the ISP could make, why not? If it was the other way around, people would be yelling about choice. Uh-huh. And who should pay for the effort?
I don't like this at all. It seems to me to indicate that my ISP can block me from p0rn, for my own good, and I have no recourse. You have recourse. Change ISP.
Wild guess - you're an arts graduate? But obviously not philosophy, or you'd know what an argument from authority is. First degree electronics, second degree computing, now doing linguistics. From which I know that an argument from authority (even if only the authority of the masses) is all there is to go on when coming to definitions of words and phrases.
The comment title referred to "wealthy Christians and crackpots" (my emphasis). Maybe the poster included the Scientologists amongst the crackpots, although I would never do such a thing (I can't afford the lawsuit).
You must have read a different article to me. The one I referenced didn't mention the standard of the college or of the degree. Yes, it says that some degrees are more marketable than others, but if you mean to write off all arts degrees as "mickey-mouse" then I think Oxford and Cambridge universities -- well, I was going to say they'd have something to say, but I somehow don't think they'd even bother. Anyway, even the best result of £250,000 for a woman who studies education is less than 10k a year over a lifetime career, and the prospect of 10k in 25 years is worth a lot less than 10k in ones pocket now (not to mention the fact that the returns are probably loaded towards the end of their career, which makes the value of the degree even less).
This whole story seems to be about making other people pay for stuff that you personally use. It just makes sense that I pay for my own education, and then I don't have to pay for anyone else's. Who uses a university education? I seem to remember work a few years ago that showed that the cost of a degree is never recovered during one's working life (here's a simplified version, but it doesn't discount to present value, so it makes things look a lot better than they really are: http://money.independent.co.uk/personal_finance/in vest_save/article305451.ece).
Financially at least (and I'll agree that there are other considerations) the benefit of a university education goes to society at large, not to the student.
If the ear can't detect it then it/should/ be possible to filter it.
I have no doubt that the industry is capable of spending a lot of money -- it would only go to the artists otherwise. I just have doubts over whether the money is likely to achieve anything productive.
The trouble with your last idea is that it seems to depend on the decoder knowing that all those sound files -- out of all the shared sound files on the net -- come from me/before/ they do the decoding. Otherwise they'll put some of my number together with some of your number and decide that it was Mitch Bainwol who shared them. Having the number distributed in a way in which that wouldn't happen would, as far as I can see, require a lot of redundancy, which increases the amount of data to be stored, which makes it harder to do without significantly impacting the audio and which makes it easier to defeat.
And actually, I do get all of my music on CD and then rip it; it gives me a convenient backup in case of file damage. But I suppose that does make me a bit of a freak -- a geek with a proven working backup of anything.
Converting to analog and recording again will only retain the watermark if the watermark was audible -- at least if you filter to retain just the audible frequencies (and there's actually no need to go via analog, you can get the same effect digitally). Of course, that's not an issue if folks accept inferior sound quality, and the indications are that a lot of folk will.
Exactly. They've been trying to watermark audio media for as long as I can remember. Either it doesn't affect the audio, in which case whatever reads the audio can re-write it without the watermark, or it does affect audio, in which case, well, it affects audio.
Also beards can scratch, I tried letting mine grow this summer and it drove me nuts. Also they can tickle, which I have found quite positive for the female interest.
So you already know the person is guilty before the trial, do you? Do you know the defendant personally or do you just have astonishing psychic powers?
Do people really think that this changes their privacy? Lots of folks have mentioned the congestion charging here in London, but even before it was introduced I got a letter from the police to say that their cameras had seen my car in an area where a murder had been committed, and had I seen anything? If they want to track folks in Manhattan I bet they already have the technology in place.
...if you have nothing to hide, what are you afraid of? Yep. As long as those in charge the whole thing are benign and competent, there's nothing to worry about. And we all know that our present and all future administrations are sure to be benign and competent, don't we?
One of the problems is what gets taught in math[s]. As Eastway and Windham put it in "How Long is a Piece of String", "Imagine if your school had the following optional topics:
Monday: How to avoid being ripped off.
Tuesday: Thinking games.
Wednesday: Tips for highly paid jobs.
Thursday: Patterns in the real world.
Friday: When to take a chance/
No doubt you would have chosen at least one of these options, and maybe all of them. And yet, without stretching reality too far, that is exactly how your timetable could have looked. It's just that some administrators decided to call each of these topics mathematics. Then, to be certain that all the fun was squeezed out, they made as much of the subject as abstract and detached from the real world as they could."
Slashdot Mirror
Actually, that would be according to science
If you mean by "never dropped" that it's never ignored completely then you should be right. If you mean that it doesn't figure into the overall set of compromises that go into designing something, well tough. I doubt there's any system that couldn't be made safer by throwing some more money at it, but there comes a point where that just doesn't make sense any more. The point may be set by a cost-benefit analysis, by safety regulations or by your insurers, but it's there whichever way it comes.
I thought the free market was supposed to achieve that? ;-)
Here in the UK, a charger for my phone costs between £20 and £25 from the various mobile phone shops, but a "universal" charger, which fits all the phones in the family except for my son's Sharp, cost less that £7 in a supermarket. Seems to work fine.
Or link through an indirection service, similar to the UserFriendly Indirectotron 9000 (http://www.uftoolbox.info/indirectotron/indirecto tron.php)
The comment title referred to "wealthy Christians and crackpots" (my emphasis). Maybe the poster included the Scientologists amongst the crackpots, although I would never do such a thing (I can't afford the lawsuit).
You must have read a different article to me. The one I referenced didn't mention the standard of the college or of the degree. Yes, it says that some degrees are more marketable than others, but if you mean to write off all arts degrees as "mickey-mouse" then I think Oxford and Cambridge universities -- well, I was going to say they'd have something to say, but I somehow don't think they'd even bother. Anyway, even the best result of £250,000 for a woman who studies education is less than 10k a year over a lifetime career, and the prospect of 10k in 25 years is worth a lot less than 10k in ones pocket now (not to mention the fact that the returns are probably loaded towards the end of their career, which makes the value of the degree even less).
Financially at least (and I'll agree that there are other considerations) the benefit of a university education goes to society at large, not to the student.
If the ear can't detect it then it /should/ be possible to filter it.
I have no doubt that the industry is capable of spending a lot of money -- it would only go to the artists otherwise. I just have doubts over whether the money is likely to achieve anything productive.
The trouble with your last idea is that it seems to depend on the decoder knowing that all those sound files -- out of all the shared sound files on the net -- come from me /before/ they do the decoding. Otherwise they'll put some of my number together with some of your number and decide that it was Mitch Bainwol who shared them. Having the number distributed in a way in which that wouldn't happen would, as far as I can see, require a lot of redundancy, which increases the amount of data to be stored, which makes it harder to do without significantly impacting the audio and which makes it easier to defeat.
And actually, I do get all of my music on CD and then rip it; it gives me a convenient backup in case of file damage. But I suppose that does make me a bit of a freak -- a geek with a proven working backup of anything.
Converting to analog and recording again will only retain the watermark if the watermark was audible -- at least if you filter to retain just the audible frequencies (and there's actually no need to go via analog, you can get the same effect digitally). Of course, that's not an issue if folks accept inferior sound quality, and the indications are that a lot of folk will.
Exactly. They've been trying to watermark audio media for as long as I can remember. Either it doesn't affect the audio, in which case whatever reads the audio can re-write it without the watermark, or it does affect audio, in which case, well, it affects audio.
So you already know the person is guilty before the trial, do you? Do you know the defendant personally or do you just have astonishing psychic powers?
Do people really think that this changes their privacy? Lots of folks have mentioned the congestion charging here in London, but even before it was introduced I got a letter from the police to say that their cameras had seen my car in an area where a murder had been committed, and had I seen anything? If they want to track folks in Manhattan I bet they already have the technology in place.
The royalties would never get to them; they'd never get past the RI- oh, wait...
No idea. I leave all that stuff to people who have a clue about the markets. All I can go on is what they told me.
...if you have nothing to hide, what are you afraid of?Yep. As long as those in charge the whole thing are benign and competent, there's nothing to worry about. And we all know that our present and all future administrations are sure to be benign and competent, don't we?
I know somebody who invested in put options. They seem happy.
Yin and Yang. In all good there is some evil, in all evil there is some good. Now come to me without disturbing the rice paper.
One of the problems is what gets taught in math[s]. As Eastway and Windham put it in "How Long is a Piece of String", "Imagine if your school had the following optional topics:
Monday: How to avoid being ripped off.
Tuesday: Thinking games.
Wednesday: Tips for highly paid jobs.
Thursday: Patterns in the real world.
Friday: When to take a chance/
No doubt you would have chosen at least one of these options, and maybe all of them. And yet, without stretching reality too far, that is exactly how your timetable could have looked. It's just that some administrators decided to call each of these topics mathematics. Then, to be certain that all the fun was squeezed out, they made as much of the subject as abstract and detached from the real world as they could."