Who needs adblockers anyway? My brain quite successfully filters out all banner ads. I just skip right past them, at most I recall there was a rectangular area on the page I ignored. The ads that pop-up over the content, requiring you to manually close them to continue reading are a bit more annoying, but I find I'm getting pretty good at clicking the close buttons without even seeing what the ad is for.
You see ads if you want to see ads. On the internet, anyway. On TV (not that I watch nowadays), radio (not that I listen to it nowadays) and outdoors (although I try to avoid the centrum nowadays) I find them more annoying.
Everyone is a potential criminal. If you try to think of modern states as non-authoritarian, none of this tracking really makes sense. If you assume, instead, that in each state there is a ruling class, who sees the rest of the citizens strictly as subjects to be governed and subdued, then all methods of gathering information about said subjects makes perfect sense. Citizens are dangerous.
Is real-world impact actually a consideration in copyright cases, beyond maybe determining damages to be paid? Is it something that would affect the outcome of a verdict, on the guilty-not guilty axis? If it is, then shouldn't the RIAA, in their suing of peer-to-peer users, need to prove the amount of financial damage done - which is of course utterly impossible?
What you say seems to imply they're being deposed to provide backup for a claim by the defendant that no breach of copyright has taken place. That would be an interesting position for Youtube to take, but I don't see it being one they could defend. Allowing a clearly described subset of material to be spread freely does not mean the copyright holder grants permission for all their content to be spread, and I doubt any such claim will be made. The best argument that could be drawn from the way the copyright holders have used Youtube in their shows is that they granted usage rights to some material, and that having their material on Youtube was good for their business. Maybe, just maybe, Youtube could even claim unauthorized use of material distributed on their service, although that would be pretty facetious. A copyright owner is, in any case, entitled to make bad business choices if they wish to do so. I don't see this angle being much more than diversionary tactics, and I'd suspect the real question is to what degree Youtube as a company is responsible for material posted by their users.
Honestly, I just don't see Microsoft's OS monopoly falling until something disruptive enough comes along to fundamentally change consumer computing altogether. Something that does away with the desktop, maybe.
If it brings no new killer features, it's a non-issue. Any developer choosing whether to code for DX10 or DX10.1 will be balancing the profit losses from losing the crowd with directx 10 cards with the benefits from using DirectX 10.1. If the benefits are nonexistent, then no-one will code for DX10.1.
the fact it hasn't caught on yet, and won't for a while, is probably precisely why they're willing to make changes that render current hardware obsolete. I see it as an admission that DX10 will not be really kicking off for a generation or two of graphics cards still.
I don't see how Vista or DX10 has been killed. It'll just take a few years to become the standard. Anyone who buys a new branded computer will be getting Vista, unless they specifically jump through hoops to get XP instead, and that will slowly but surely bring the majority of PCs into the Vista camp. By then, it's a moot point whether or not games on XP perform better.
Without knowing any details in the relevant case, I'd like to note that the application of laws is not and should not be a democratic process. Democratic processes are not impartial.
Indeed, and, again, no-one is suggesting a wide-open repository of personal data should be created. You guys have hallucinated that part all on your own.
Any problems fully open access to a network causes arise from insufficient access controls within the network, not from insufficient network-wide screening of members. The Facebook example is a good argument for an open framework - with an open system you wouldn't be relying on the profile or policy of the service you are using - in other words, a 3rd party - to protect you from undesirables, but on your own access controls. No need to worry about the service provider suddenly changing their policies, since access to your profile and your personal groups would not be dependent on any external influences.
Where are you people getting this idea that an open framework means no access controls? I never thought I'd see so many people touting the virtues of vendor lock-in here of all places. Hell, it seems to me that an open network would give you MORE control over your data, since, when properly implemented, it would allow you to stop everyone but the people you really want to see your profile from seeing it, INCLUDING any service providers such as Facebook. Goodbye data-mining, goodbye spam.
Either you didn't read the article, or your reading comprehension needs serious work. The author was NOT calling for a network where all information is freely available to everyone, simply an open framework within which people can network as they please. It's kind of like IRC versus a web-based chatroom on a website - IRC is an open framework, anyone can make an IRC client that will work with any IRC server, but that doesn't mean users can't form private channels or choose who they communicate with. Similarly, there is no reason an open framework for a social network would require you to give up the ability to have distinct, closed cliques within the open system. You could, however, reuse any profile data you put in for as many different groups in as many different configurations as you like, without having to sign up for and maintain your presence on a multitude of different, specialized social networking services. You'd just need one login for one service, or maybe one login for a master network which you could allow any independent service to access to retrieve your data as you see fit.
copyRIGHT protection, not copy protection. The only way the GPL is enforceable is to apply copyright laws, since they grant the original creator of a work the right to license the work in the first place.
So basically, the media companies realize their income from sales of recordings is not going to hold out much longer, and they're looking to come up with a range of taxes and levies to cover the losses.
Whoopee.
"We"?
Humanity is not a group mind, although it would have to be for "us" to be reliably able to learn not to destroy the planet. That's the point, here. A small group of individuals with ideas opposed to those of the majority of the planetary population could wipe us all out, given the right circumstances. On a long enough timeline, those circumstances are very likely to appear. The question is simply, do we spread into space, get wiped out by a few lunatics, or become extinct through some other mechanism first?
Of course, maybe we will evolve into a hive mind, or into a form of life whose psychology is fundamentally different, but then you're not really speaking of homo sapiens anymore anyway, so in a sense those options are comparable to extinction.
The stats I've seen indicate that 50-80% of adults in western countries have some form of herpes, be it genital, oral, or some kind of more unfortunate eye herpes or what have you. But then people seem to find a good deal of entirely normal bodily functions very embarrassing as well, so why not a virus that the majority of adults have?
I wonder if it would really make any sense to try to tap the trains potential energy. You would only want to tap the momentum when the train brakes, and they don't do that as often as, say, cars tend to. OTOH, I guess something the size of a train braking on approach to a station does have a lot of momentum.
Why would anyone suspicious of destructive countermeasures try the password even once? They'd know the chances of guessing the password are infinitesimal, and the risk of losing data high. Such an adversary would move directly to alternative methods, and again, it doesn't matter if it would take 10 tries or one try to wipe the drive.
Assuming your password isn't 1234, but something more reasonable, like a 20-key random sequence, I'd say it's pretty unlikely anyone will guess it right in ten tries.
Slashdot Mirror
Who needs adblockers anyway? My brain quite successfully filters out all banner ads. I just skip right past them, at most I recall there was a rectangular area on the page I ignored. The ads that pop-up over the content, requiring you to manually close them to continue reading are a bit more annoying, but I find I'm getting pretty good at clicking the close buttons without even seeing what the ad is for.
You see ads if you want to see ads. On the internet, anyway. On TV (not that I watch nowadays), radio (not that I listen to it nowadays) and outdoors (although I try to avoid the centrum nowadays) I find them more annoying.
Everyone is a potential criminal. If you try to think of modern states as non-authoritarian, none of this tracking really makes sense. If you assume, instead, that in each state there is a ruling class, who sees the rest of the citizens strictly as subjects to be governed and subdued, then all methods of gathering information about said subjects makes perfect sense. Citizens are dangerous.
Is real-world impact actually a consideration in copyright cases, beyond maybe determining damages to be paid? Is it something that would affect the outcome of a verdict, on the guilty-not guilty axis? If it is, then shouldn't the RIAA, in their suing of peer-to-peer users, need to prove the amount of financial damage done - which is of course utterly impossible?
What you say seems to imply they're being deposed to provide backup for a claim by the defendant that no breach of copyright has taken place. That would be an interesting position for Youtube to take, but I don't see it being one they could defend. Allowing a clearly described subset of material to be spread freely does not mean the copyright holder grants permission for all their content to be spread, and I doubt any such claim will be made. The best argument that could be drawn from the way the copyright holders have used Youtube in their shows is that they granted usage rights to some material, and that having their material on Youtube was good for their business. Maybe, just maybe, Youtube could even claim unauthorized use of material distributed on their service, although that would be pretty facetious. A copyright owner is, in any case, entitled to make bad business choices if they wish to do so. I don't see this angle being much more than diversionary tactics, and I'd suspect the real question is to what degree Youtube as a company is responsible for material posted by their users.
You know, either you take care of the poor, or they take care of you. Permanently.
The universe doesn't care.
The hard core, sure, but in the end most developers who wants to make a profit will be targeting a wider audience than that.
Honestly, I just don't see Microsoft's OS monopoly falling until something disruptive enough comes along to fundamentally change consumer computing altogether. Something that does away with the desktop, maybe.
If it brings no new killer features, it's a non-issue. Any developer choosing whether to code for DX10 or DX10.1 will be balancing the profit losses from losing the crowd with directx 10 cards with the benefits from using DirectX 10.1. If the benefits are nonexistent, then no-one will code for DX10.1.
the fact it hasn't caught on yet, and won't for a while, is probably precisely why they're willing to make changes that render current hardware obsolete. I see it as an admission that DX10 will not be really kicking off for a generation or two of graphics cards still.
I don't see how Vista or DX10 has been killed. It'll just take a few years to become the standard. Anyone who buys a new branded computer will be getting Vista, unless they specifically jump through hoops to get XP instead, and that will slowly but surely bring the majority of PCs into the Vista camp. By then, it's a moot point whether or not games on XP perform better.
Without knowing any details in the relevant case, I'd like to note that the application of laws is not and should not be a democratic process. Democratic processes are not impartial.
Indeed, and, again, no-one is suggesting a wide-open repository of personal data should be created. You guys have hallucinated that part all on your own.
I fail to see why vendor lock-in is necessary to have communities.
Any problems fully open access to a network causes arise from insufficient access controls within the network, not from insufficient network-wide screening of members. The Facebook example is a good argument for an open framework - with an open system you wouldn't be relying on the profile or policy of the service you are using - in other words, a 3rd party - to protect you from undesirables, but on your own access controls. No need to worry about the service provider suddenly changing their policies, since access to your profile and your personal groups would not be dependent on any external influences.
Where are you people getting this idea that an open framework means no access controls? I never thought I'd see so many people touting the virtues of vendor lock-in here of all places. Hell, it seems to me that an open network would give you MORE control over your data, since, when properly implemented, it would allow you to stop everyone but the people you really want to see your profile from seeing it, INCLUDING any service providers such as Facebook. Goodbye data-mining, goodbye spam.
Sir, get thee a Clue.
Either you didn't read the article, or your reading comprehension needs serious work. The author was NOT calling for a network where all information is freely available to everyone, simply an open framework within which people can network as they please. It's kind of like IRC versus a web-based chatroom on a website - IRC is an open framework, anyone can make an IRC client that will work with any IRC server, but that doesn't mean users can't form private channels or choose who they communicate with. Similarly, there is no reason an open framework for a social network would require you to give up the ability to have distinct, closed cliques within the open system. You could, however, reuse any profile data you put in for as many different groups in as many different configurations as you like, without having to sign up for and maintain your presence on a multitude of different, specialized social networking services. You'd just need one login for one service, or maybe one login for a master network which you could allow any independent service to access to retrieve your data as you see fit.
copyRIGHT protection, not copy protection. The only way the GPL is enforceable is to apply copyright laws, since they grant the original creator of a work the right to license the work in the first place.
So basically, the media companies realize their income from sales of recordings is not going to hold out much longer, and they're looking to come up with a range of taxes and levies to cover the losses. Whoopee.
"We"? Humanity is not a group mind, although it would have to be for "us" to be reliably able to learn not to destroy the planet. That's the point, here. A small group of individuals with ideas opposed to those of the majority of the planetary population could wipe us all out, given the right circumstances. On a long enough timeline, those circumstances are very likely to appear. The question is simply, do we spread into space, get wiped out by a few lunatics, or become extinct through some other mechanism first?
Of course, maybe we will evolve into a hive mind, or into a form of life whose psychology is fundamentally different, but then you're not really speaking of homo sapiens anymore anyway, so in a sense those options are comparable to extinction.
The stats I've seen indicate that 50-80% of adults in western countries have some form of herpes, be it genital, oral, or some kind of more unfortunate eye herpes or what have you. But then people seem to find a good deal of entirely normal bodily functions very embarrassing as well, so why not a virus that the majority of adults have?
Well... She had functional legs, right? the old 180-walk should work, although maybe insisting on a refund for the ticket first would be a good idea.
I wonder if it would really make any sense to try to tap the trains potential energy. You would only want to tap the momentum when the train brakes, and they don't do that as often as, say, cars tend to. OTOH, I guess something the size of a train braking on approach to a station does have a lot of momentum.
Why would anyone suspicious of destructive countermeasures try the password even once? They'd know the chances of guessing the password are infinitesimal, and the risk of losing data high. Such an adversary would move directly to alternative methods, and again, it doesn't matter if it would take 10 tries or one try to wipe the drive.
Assuming your password isn't 1234, but something more reasonable, like a 20-key random sequence, I'd say it's pretty unlikely anyone will guess it right in ten tries.