now that rich white people have drug problems (ie, "real" people), maybe we can muster up some sympathy for other addicted people now?
Sure we can. We can feel sympathy for all those who were addicted due to a doctor's incompetence in prescribing drugs (it's not their fault!) Or for those valiantly sacrificing their health to pay for the 47% moochers' share.
</I wish I was joking >
The fact is, cocaine and pain-killers have always been an upper-class drug; and the penalties and stigmas surrounding both reflect that.
The one surprising thing was the accusation of meth use; but I feel like that's likely purposeful conflation with other amphetamines by someone with a vested interest in exaggerating the problem.
I'm at year 13, and I've learned those lessons you said earning your degree taught you.... but I (lucky for me) didn't need college to teach me humility and how to be receptive to learning
Yeah, I'm gonna say no. Humility, recognizing the depths of your ignorance, being open to new ideas, dealing with new people, being exposed to other things, etc. are all a continuum, not binary.
That said, you may be advanced for your age. But you seem to think that means you crossed the finish line early. What it means is, if you don't squander it, you can go much farther.
Different tool chains are not used, because it is a client-server architecture, but because regularly one develops for different platforms using different technologies.
That's the idea I don't get. Why oh why do different platforms try to/actually encourage and enforce this? Cross-platform code is good. I suppose it behooves the dominant player (I suppose iOS) to not be compatible with, say, Windows Phone. But doesn't that mean Windows Phone should be made to be compatible with iOS?
I'd love to see a single UI that works across 4" phones and 7" tablets with gorilla glass, and 13" laptops and 10" convertibles with membrane keyboards, and 24" desktops with 101-keyboards, and 60" XBox Ones with controllers but I'm not holding my breath.
OS != UI.
The OS has so much more. Hell, a lot of programs only talk to other programs, and those instantly work regardless of form factor. I think it would be great if the future was just make... what, 4..., UI profiles was sufficient to be cross platform
It would be kind of ironic if it were a software-only patent, since one of the reasons H.264 is amazing is the hardware acceleration built into everything.
By the time the patents on one codec have run out, bandwidth constraints cause providers of non-free media to switch to a new freshly patented codec
That seems silly.
Bandwidth is one of those commodities (like processor cycles) that gets cheaper as time marches on. Bandwidth now is easily a couple of orders of magnitude higher than a decade ago (and moving towards gigabit), and that was several orders of magnitude higher than the decade before that.
Further, its a cost center now. If you could halve Netflix's bandwidth costs, you'd be quite wealthy.
The real limits are a) on the decoding side: How much processor power, RAM, etc. does it take to create an image, and b) the quality of the decompressed video, esp. against theoretical limits
. Unfortunately for Verison disabilities activists can be INCREDIBLY noisy when they are shat upon, so I doubt our deaf friends are going to tolerate this guff at all.
But how would they know?
Go deaf dudes!
Hear, hear! <-- What I actually wrote before I figured out it was ironic, which would be fine, and probably insensitive, which is not. But I will echo your sentiment: Go dead dudes!
The source is open: you can read it, you can compile it and compare binaries, etc.
In fact, it is BSD licensed.
But that only covers the copyright. The patent is not opened (nor owned by Cisco), and seem to prevent derivative works.
Cisco paid the fees to use the patent in this one application, and open-sourced it to the world. Seems like a great solution, security-wise, and clever legally.
And, it becomes just more BSD code when the patent expires in... what, a decade? Or if the new Supreme Court ruling is found to invalidate the patent.
I'm not sure what I would do to protect my device (I'm not smart enough to make a device, so it's a moot point)
But I do know that it would be a toss up between trying to keep Google from opening the box, and trying to develop a tamper-evident prove that they did. I have no idea if the lawsuit would be worth enough to justify the costs... and whether I could patent it anyway.
Re:I will not stop saying this, I won't,...
on
Firefox 31 Released
·
· Score: 1
So they gave analytics teams an easier way to send info, so they don't have to rely on really iffy hacks that often cause all sorts of stability and performance issues?
You mean like cookies? Why are cookies not the appropriate solution to a standardized way to track users if they choose to allow themselves to be tracked.
if you had a good solution to Canvas tracking then why didn't you tell them?
Sure. Disable readback from the Canvas. Done.
If FireFox took a stand against stupid bullshit that costs more than it benefits, they could kill it. They're big enough to do so.
But you never owned it in the first place... even when you had a hard copy. You only owned a license.
Google "First Sale Doctrine". You own a copy. Software is tricky because it comes bundled with a license to install it/run it. But the actual disks that contain the installer? Yours.
All these things go away if you buy a license directly from the stuido, and are guaranteed perpetual use
Yeah, but that won't happen. In fact, the studios are pushing for per-device fees, separating TV/Computer/Mobile rights, and going more towards a "per-view" model.
Even if they were willing to, even if that didn't cause all kinds of problems with residuals, even if it didn't impose a perpetual and unbounded cost on the studio... what happens when the studio goes out of business? How does fulfillment actually happen
My problem with physical media is that it's not possible to carry it all with you... so when you want to take a road trip you have to be selective and predict what your kids are going to want to watch.
You could ask them ahead of time and plan ahead. Or you could carry a hundred disks in a relatively small wallet. Or, depending on where you live, you may be able to copy the DVD to a hard drive for transportation.
When kids damage the media, you are stuck purchasing another license to something you already have a license to use.
Did you use your legal right to make a backup?
But personally, I find the times I am without access to stream, a la ton a plane, in a tunnel, or just with a lot of peopel using the Internet at my house, where ever, make me want a local copy. And that means a physical copy, in general, if I want it on a device I control that doesn't need to call home or self-destruct. It also means I can resell it, loan it to a friend, etc.
Huh? I'm all for shorter copyrights. But it's stupid to not anticipate the reaction of Disney, et al. And their solution will be to attempt to use technology, licenses as opposed to ownership, and every other non-legal monopoly method to keep their copyrights in practice once they are no longer supported bu the law.
What good is the copyright expiring if the day before it expires, the content-owner (for one more day) can destory/make unavailable all copies they don't own? And then maintain de facto control over the work, if not de jure.
you give my physical access to a box, it's my box.
Well, the BIOS could be password protected, the case alarmed if opened. In either case you could work around those, but if I put that box in a busy hallway, that's not going to happen. Combine that with no optical media or USB ports, and I think that's a pretty safe box.
Now, you could mess with the hardware, via a hardware key logger, but that could be mitigated by soldering the wires directly as opposed to allowing a PS/2 port. And the keyboard could probably be physically hardened to the point that you cannot easily open it.
Bottom line, physical access is one thing. But tamper-evident measures combined with regular but not continuous observations should enable me to trust that if you do gain access, I will know about it while you are present. Possibly even before you are able to finish gaining access.
" when in fact I mean anyone who thinks that disks are the perfect medium, including the rights holders
Rights holders would love to move to an all-streaming, all-rental model. They just would cut out a large number of customers.
If they would let go of their belief that disk distribution is a good thing... then we can all move towards a world where streaming distribution is normal, easy and cheap.
The thing is, streaming puts you at other people's mercy. The studio doesn't make money streaming an old movie (it does cost something to host them)? Gone from the service. There was never a disk release? Possibly gone forever, like the old inflammable films of yore.
With physical media, there is still that first sale doctrine to keep the copies alive and circulating.
we can all move towards a world where streaming distribution is normal, easy and cheap.
It will be cheap and easy, then as it become normal, it will become less cheap. As it becomes less cheap, it will become less easy, because suddenly there is enough money in it that every media company can roll their own solution, and not lose money to another entity taking a cut. Hell, the later is already happening, as stuff is disappearing off Hulu to various network sites.
There is absolutely no way these companies would give it up voluntarily.
Well, the easier solution is not to give them the option. It's also a lot more failsafe, since people *will* break a law, but *will not* do things that are impossible/too difficult/too expensive.
Getting ads is annoying, getting ads for African American hair styling products when you're a redhead is infuriating. Targeted ads are a good thing, it's the completely unaddressed side affects of that data collection that's a problem.
Targeted ads are annoying as hell.
They are often something I would never be interested in, and even if it were rarely what I am interested in at the time I'm browsing.
Non-targeted ads bother me less, because I just tune them out. No need for my brain to waste cycles processing a fast-food commercial
Bill Clinton word style play shouldn't absolve you of negligence.
Bill Clinton (a lawyer) played a better game of technicalities than the guy (another lawyer) taking his statement. As stupid as it would be to use language like that in real life, that whole process was just a game.
Slashdot Mirror
Sure we can. We can feel sympathy for all those who were addicted due to a doctor's incompetence in prescribing drugs (it's not their fault!) Or for those valiantly sacrificing their health to pay for the 47% moochers' share.
</I wish I was joking >
The fact is, cocaine and pain-killers have always been an upper-class drug; and the penalties and stigmas surrounding both reflect that.
The one surprising thing was the accusation of meth use; but I feel like that's likely purposeful conflation with other amphetamines by someone with a vested interest in exaggerating the problem.
Yeah, I'm gonna say no. Humility, recognizing the depths of your ignorance, being open to new ideas, dealing with new people, being exposed to other things, etc. are all a continuum, not binary.
That said, you may be advanced for your age. But you seem to think that means you crossed the finish line early. What it means is, if you don't squander it, you can go much farther.
I wish you luck.
That's the idea I don't get. Why oh why do different platforms try to/actually encourage and enforce this? Cross-platform code is good. I suppose it behooves the dominant player (I suppose iOS) to not be compatible with, say, Windows Phone. But doesn't that mean Windows Phone should be made to be compatible with iOS?
I also expect to see the second coming of Jesus riding unicorns at that point. Beta is the new Gold Master
OS != UI.
The OS has so much more. Hell, a lot of programs only talk to other programs, and those instantly work regardless of form factor. I think it would be great if the future was just make... what, 4..., UI profiles was sufficient to be cross platform
It would be kind of ironic if it were a software-only patent, since one of the reasons H.264 is amazing is the hardware acceleration built into everything.
That seems silly.
Bandwidth is one of those commodities (like processor cycles) that gets cheaper as time marches on. Bandwidth now is easily a couple of orders of magnitude higher than a decade ago (and moving towards gigabit), and that was several orders of magnitude higher than the decade before that.
Further, its a cost center now. If you could halve Netflix's bandwidth costs, you'd be quite wealthy.
The real limits are a) on the decoding side: How much processor power, RAM, etc. does it take to create an image, and b) the quality of the decompressed video, esp. against theoretical limits
But how would they know?
Hear, hear! <-- What I actually wrote before I figured out it was ironic, which would be fine, and probably insensitive, which is not. But I will echo your sentiment: Go dead dudes!
Cisco heard your concerns and has responded: Development and maintenance will be overseen by a board from industry and the open source community.
The source is open: you can read it, you can compile it and compare binaries, etc.
In fact, it is BSD licensed.
But that only covers the copyright. The patent is not opened (nor owned by Cisco), and seem to prevent derivative works.
Cisco paid the fees to use the patent in this one application, and open-sourced it to the world. Seems like a great solution, security-wise, and clever legally.
And, it becomes just more BSD code when the patent expires in... what, a decade? Or if the new Supreme Court ruling is found to invalidate the patent.
I'm not sure what I would do to protect my device (I'm not smart enough to make a device, so it's a moot point)
But I do know that it would be a toss up between trying to keep Google from opening the box, and trying to develop a tamper-evident prove that they did. I have no idea if the lawsuit would be worth enough to justify the costs... and whether I could patent it anyway.
Why update the browser at all then?
You mean like cookies? Why are cookies not the appropriate solution to a standardized way to track users if they choose to allow themselves to be tracked.
Sure. Disable readback from the Canvas. Done.
If FireFox took a stand against stupid bullshit that costs more than it benefits, they could kill it. They're big enough to do so.
Except they are not claiming any of the IP, just a 100 hr license to use it for the test. Also, why they claim they will not open the box up.
Google "First Sale Doctrine". You own a copy. Software is tricky because it comes bundled with a license to install it/run it. But the actual disks that contain the installer? Yours.
Yeah, but that won't happen. In fact, the studios are pushing for per-device fees, separating TV/Computer/Mobile rights, and going more towards a "per-view" model.
Even if they were willing to, even if that didn't cause all kinds of problems with residuals, even if it didn't impose a perpetual and unbounded cost on the studio... what happens when the studio goes out of business? How does fulfillment actually happen
You could ask them ahead of time and plan ahead. Or you could carry a hundred disks in a relatively small wallet. Or, depending on where you live, you may be able to copy the DVD to a hard drive for transportation.
Did you use your legal right to make a backup?
But personally, I find the times I am without access to stream, a la ton a plane, in a tunnel, or just with a lot of peopel using the Internet at my house, where ever, make me want a local copy. And that means a physical copy, in general, if I want it on a device I control that doesn't need to call home or self-destruct. It also means I can resell it, loan it to a friend, etc.
Well, you could use PS/2, or serial, or even say "fuck it, no mouse for you. Here's a command line and a tab key."
Huh? I'm all for shorter copyrights. But it's stupid to not anticipate the reaction of Disney, et al. And their solution will be to attempt to use technology, licenses as opposed to ownership, and every other non-legal monopoly method to keep their copyrights in practice once they are no longer supported bu the law.
What good is the copyright expiring if the day before it expires, the content-owner (for one more day) can destory/make unavailable all copies they don't own? And then maintain de facto control over the work, if not de jure.
How does it assure no deficiencies? And why don't other projects use that methodology?
Well, the BIOS could be password protected, the case alarmed if opened. In either case you could work around those, but if I put that box in a busy hallway, that's not going to happen. Combine that with no optical media or USB ports, and I think that's a pretty safe box.
Now, you could mess with the hardware, via a hardware key logger, but that could be mitigated by soldering the wires directly as opposed to allowing a PS/2 port. And the keyboard could probably be physically hardened to the point that you cannot easily open it.
Bottom line, physical access is one thing. But tamper-evident measures combined with regular but not continuous observations should enable me to trust that if you do gain access, I will know about it while you are present. Possibly even before you are able to finish gaining access.
How does that work? If there is an easy way to guarantee no deficiencies, why isn't it used always?
Rights holders would love to move to an all-streaming, all-rental model. They just would cut out a large number of customers.
The thing is, streaming puts you at other people's mercy. The studio doesn't make money streaming an old movie (it does cost something to host them)? Gone from the service. There was never a disk release? Possibly gone forever, like the old inflammable films of yore.
With physical media, there is still that first sale doctrine to keep the copies alive and circulating.
It will be cheap and easy, then as it become normal, it will become less cheap. As it becomes less cheap, it will become less easy, because suddenly there is enough money in it that every media company can roll their own solution, and not lose money to another entity taking a cut. Hell, the later is already happening, as stuff is disappearing off Hulu to various network sites.
Well, the easier solution is not to give them the option. It's also a lot more failsafe, since people *will* break a law, but *will not* do things that are impossible/too difficult/too expensive.
Targeted ads are annoying as hell.
They are often something I would never be interested in, and even if it were rarely what I am interested in at the time I'm browsing.
Non-targeted ads bother me less, because I just tune them out. No need for my brain to waste cycles processing a fast-food commercial
Bill Clinton (a lawyer) played a better game of technicalities than the guy (another lawyer) taking his statement. As stupid as it would be to use language like that in real life, that whole process was just a game.
No, it wouldn't.
This takes advantage of driver/hardware differences, and settings for graphics.
Therefore, unless you update the drivers/change your settings/change your hardware it will not block this.
That said, it shouldn't be that difficult to block; I mean, who uses the Canvas anyway?
Hell, there are even bugs* that have 100% different failure states on ATI vs. NVidia cards. All ATI cards default to white, NVidia cards to black**
*For example, rendering a NULL texture
** May be backwards