Tell me why a person has no right to profit from their labor, and I'll answer your question.
The product of your labour is only valuable due to the fact it includes huge portions of the public culture's resources. Language - Did you invent the language your work is produced in? Did you invent the concepts and notions of word play, drama, suspense or modern cinematic treatments thereof?
No. You are standing on the shoulders of giants -- In proportion to your own work, the inclusion of the public culture's resources far outweighs your contribution to any thought-product protected by copyright.
Many Inventions are far more creative and/or useful than the works of film-makers or authors, yet the former only receive a ~20 year monopoly with which they may profit from their creations. Copyright holders enjoy a monopoly over their creations for Lifetime + 70 years -- THAT'S TWO GENERATIONS OF HUMANS AND THEIR CULTURE!
The original intent of copyright law was not to prevent the general public from making reproductions, or remixes of a copyrighted work. Originally, copyrights were enacted to prevent Publishers form abusing the public and creators of works -- Publishing contracts currently provide them an end-run around this. Copyright laws have been turned against the general public and the content authors. Copyright violations are so prevalent largely due to the fact that copying is so cheap that reproductions are essentially in infinite supply -- Economics 101: Regardless of production cost; Price tends toward zero as supply increases to infinity.
I do not have a license to make reproductions of a DVD, yet it must surely be duplicated at least FOUR TIMES PER VIEW (once within the DVD SATA cache, once in main RAM, another in my VIDEO CARD, and a fourth on my monitor's display). I must break copyright laws under which you operate completely no less than 4 times to consume your works; That's what I call irrelevant laws. (Note, only recently have I been allowed to legally view most DVDs on Linux -- I compiled the player myself == unlicensed player).
The very state of the culture itself is what makes your product have worth.
Please explain how much worth any thought-media is in proportion to the entire human culture's collective contribution to said work. Please explain how relevant pay-per copy models are now that copies are in infinite supply. Please explain to me why basic economic principals do not apply to industries that profit from copyright.
When you can fully explain to me why continued abuse of the general public is allowed instead of reformation of the ancient copyright laws considering that 200 years of technological advancement have made the laws irrelevant, then I'll extrapolate the amount you may earn by producing those works -- It may be a negative amount due to the harm that abused copyright laws have caused the public.
If not for "piracy" there would be no incentive to change the model -- The Piracy epidemic exists because modern technology has rendered the pay-per-copy model irrelevant.
I agree that creators should be compensated for their works, but I do not agree to TWO GENERATIONS OF MONOPOLY for works that are only a small fraction original. I can see why some would, in protest, ignore copyright laws in order to offset the absurdity of the state of copyright laws -- CAN YOU NOT?
As much as everybody hates DMCA takedown notices around here, it seems like that would be the proper avenue for this sort of thing. It's certainly not an abuse of the DMCA in this case. Apple would likely respond relatively quickly so they don't lose their safe harbor.
While I agree DMCA takedown would be best, how do you do so if they do not respond to your e-mail?
Also: Apple's editorial control has already lost them the "safe harbor".
The review process is not there to do anything of the sort. The review process is to make a reasonable attempt to ensure that the application doesn't do anything harmful and that it follows all of the programming and content related guidelines set forth by Apple. The review process makes no claims that it will prevent similar apps from appearing or that the apps are actually good.
Nope, The approval process has no other purpose but to deny apps Apple doesn't like.
Native apps w/o source code are next to impossible to review aside from using a full code path coverage tool. A tool could be used to ensure all code paths are tested during approval process, but clearly Apple isn't doing this or else 15 year olds wouldn't be able to sneak tethering into a flash-light app.
If tethering can slip through unnoticed, why not malware? WHAT'S THE POINT?
1. It will be incomplete 2. It will be closed 3. It will be hard to remove 4. It may not be "optional" 5. It will cause problems with the browser and maybe the OS.
6. It will be installed in Firefox as well, then MS H.264 will be the universal exploit attack vector -- Finally, crackers can create a single drive-by-download exploit that works in all major browsers.
Generally speaking, any site that uses browser detection and refuses to support an unknown browser (or specifically refuses Chrome) will not be visited by me..
Broken browser detection is because browser detection != feature detection.
I test for the existence of supported features like document.attachEvent vs document.addEventListener, then use what is supported regardless of browser.
Checking by user-agent string is just wrong unless you are not using any JS at all -- User-agent switcher does not defeat my browser detection, and when IE9000 finally supports.addEventListener then it will get actually get used -- Forward compatible JS detects the features it uses.
CSS / (X)HTML features is a different beast -- I suggest conditional comments to isolate IE.
Meh, different people designate failure based on different criteria.
My bro got an iPod touch for x-mas, Giddy as all hell he plugged it in to his computer only to find that iTunes is required, but doesn't work with Linux.
"This is the most amazing piece of crap I've ever seen" -- My 18yr old brother (while en route to exchange an iPod Touch).
IMHO, Apple = Fail. Can't run the software for their devices on anything but OSX or Windows -- I don't understand; I write cross platform code (Win, Mac, *nix) all the time, it isn't that difficult. Sure, I can run iTunes in an VM, to make it work on my bro's Linux box, so it's not stopping people who really want to do that... Why shun the customers that just want devices that work without a big hassle? I thought that was Apple's MO, What's up with that?
(Note - My bro's older iPod works on Linux... iOS == DRM Fail? WTF Apple?)
I know people will hate me for saying this, but in a way, it's better if everyone sees practically the same movie. If we're all seeing slightly different views, then we won't all have quite the same experience. I think there's something to be said for having a particular view of the scene intended by the director.
Hmm, maybe, but also: Plays, Concerts, Live performances. In R/L no two people have the same perspective at the same time, yet these actual 3D scenes are fine.
Additionally, what if a director had the option of including elements that change a scene depending on viewing angle?
On one side of the theater people are "D'awww"ing over two lovers about to kiss for the first time -- On the other side of the audience people are on the edge of their seat in suspense because they can see that one of the lovers is holding a butcher-knife behind their back.
Say it with me: Replayability. It works for videogames, perhaps it might not be such a bad thing for movies?
This makes me glad I use Google Chrome. As well as the speed, of course.
Who doesn't use "the speed"; I agree, using it makes everything better -- Just don't get too addicted. However, Chrome is overrated, IMHO; Mirrors work just as well.
It still shows up in the html. The italics are being suppressed by css to the effect of
* {font-style: inherit;}
Which is quite fashionable, it tells the browser to to discard all default styles, so that the designer can build them from the ground up. It also leads to the rather interesting
em { font-style: italic;}
later on.
The mind does boggle.
Yeah, but this just means we should start emphasising text by placing it between <em> and </em> tags; The <strong> and </strong> tags should be used to denote words with increased impact.
These tags work. I realise that having to switch the tags is stupid, but that's what the W3C says to do, so that's what I'll do. I'm not going to complain about it -- that takes longer to do than adopting the new recommendation... (It's nice to see Slashdot adopting recommendations, even if they are crappy ones.)
As far as I can tell, not one of these individuals can be charged under the Computer Misuse Act (but IANAL) - the DDOS was effectively reaslised across many individuals whose net effect was a DDOS. Further, surely they could claim that their action was simply an expression of their right to free assembly? Anyone any insights here?
DDOS attacks are malicious in nature and designed to harm a target. It would be difficult to convince a reasonable person that they are equitable to a peaceful assembly. A better analogy would be to compare it to a mob riot.
Except that in a mob riot physical property can get destroyed, people can be injured or killed -- it's not the same.
Normally when a person goes to a store, they do not linger, their presence is transient; Protesters have a less transient presence -- Their presence is felt by customers who would enter the store for a while, but not permanently; Some customers may be turned away, but no one should be injured.
When all you have is the Internet, every thing looks like a packet. You can't protest in front of say, Mastercard.com. The only presence you have is your web traffic. It's not like the packets sent by LOIC were maliciously crafted -- the alleged "attack toolkit" was very ineffective as one; It was intended to be used as a protest toolkit (Intent should be considered). The protest toolkit didn't attempt to hide the identities of those involved, LOIC didn't infect and use people's machines without permission (as bot-nets do), and it didn't perform a reflected attack to multiply its effect -- Each participant only contributed their own presence (web traffic).
The protest's web traffic was felt by those who would enter the affected web site for a while, but not permanently; Some visitors were turned away, but no one was injured.
Some visitors could not just ignore the protest and enter the web site, much like how a large enough real life protest may cause drivers to pause momentarily, the combined effect, known as rubbernecking, can cause temporary vehicle traffic problems which could prevent a customer from ignoring the protests effects.
To me, Anonymous' digital protest has a lot more similarities to a real life peaceful protest than to an angry mob setting fires to cars, smashing windows, looting, and killing or injuring innocent bystanders; The protests were very different than a bot-net controlled by a small number of malcontents which infects thousands of machines against the will of their owners and uses them in a (R(D))DOS attack.
Anonymous participants intended to protest digitally. When all you have is a hammer... Well, all they had was the Internet.
If you can show people that what their government wants to do wont actually stop whatever criminal activity people want the government to stop (and more to the point, suggest an alternative that will be more effective in stopping the criminal activity in question) people might just listen.
You see, no matter how blatant, commonplace or accessible the proof is people just won't listen; People are stupid -- It's the Wizard's First Rule: Some people will believe anything if they fear it to be true.
The crux of his argument is simple: 600 million years of evolution has designed eyes that focus and converge in parallel, at the same distance.
That same 600 million years of evolution has designed humans that frequently focus at different depths to focus upon points of interest. Both 2D and 3D films fail to allow us to focus anywhere but on the screen.
By this logic, 2D movies don't "work and will never work"; By this logic, the ONLY visual entertainment that can work is live: Plays, Opera, Concerts, etc. Unfortunately, it's not economical or practical to produce real time special effects and have actors deliver perfect performances with the same frequency that movies are played...
Once again, by the flim critics' own line of logic, I have once again arrived at the conclusion I always arrive at when critics speak: There is no need for film critics.
(...It would be awesome to have my own playhouse & players that could immediately put on any of the plays I want on demand; Sadly, a childhood incident involving a lost balloon, molten cheese and a bear's crotch has left petrified of those creepy animatronics.)
You own all of the content and information you post on Facebook, and you can control how it is shared through your privacy and application settings. In addition:
1. For content that is covered by intellectual property rights, like photos and videos ("IP content"), you specifically give us the following permission, subject to your privacy and application settings: you grant us a non-exclusive, transferable, sub-licensable, royalty-free, worldwide license to use any IP content that you post on or in connection with Facebook ("IP License"). This IP License ends when you delete your IP content or your account unless your content has been shared with others, and they have not deleted it.
2. When you delete IP content, it is deleted in a manner similar to emptying the recycle bin on a computer. However, you understand that removed content may persist in backup copies for a reasonable period of time (but will not be available to others).
I've yet to determine if "any IP content that you post on or in conjunction with Facebook" applies to IP posted to my own website on pages that include a Facebook "like" button...
Also, the "IP License ends when you delete your IP content or your account unless your content has been shared with others, and they have not deleted it." Seeing as it's not enough for you to delete anything it must also be deleted by everyone you shared the info with too, and even after deleting, you agree that it's not deleted, just in a recycle bin -- It's effectively impossible to remove your images and/or other IP.
proprieterroize (V): the introduction of proprietary or incompatible features to an otherwise standard product for the express purpose of limiting the customers' purchasing options in order to artificially drive up the product's cost.
A portmanteau of proprietary and terrorize often used to describe vendor lock in strategies.
"Although the two cables appear identical, I can't use a standard USB cable to charge my GPS; I have to use Garmin's proprieterrorized USB cable instead."
----
Appropriation would mean that they took control of the standard USB protocol to bend all users of it to their ultimate will; Instead they simply produce incompatible USB cables for their own products (not all USB products) to bend consumers to their will and establish vendor lock in.
It would be silly to think that a company would have to appropriate their own products. How does one forcefully gain control over something they already control?
I'm glad to see that software repositories (app stores) are finally making their way into everything from phones to Windows (8?) and iOS.
However, I'm pissed off at the limited and closed way that these repositories are designed.
I get that the repo management should be able to punt any app they don't like. However, the users should also be able to add additional repositories (sources for downloading apps).
It would be great to have a unified app selection process instead of having to jump between repos -- Way to take a great idea, and neuter it.
It's not a concern that's specific to FOSS software, but in fairness, a change in direction for a product that is a fairly important component of your workplace infrastructure *should* be cause for a re-evaluation.
I agree, look at migrating from MS Office 2003 to MS Office 2010 -- Did you re-evaluate MS Office when they adopted a different direction (ribbon)?
Is the software going to be actively supported, upgraded, maintained? Is it going to be left to die a slow, languishing death-by-neglect?
You mean, like how older versions of closed source applications are left unsupported, and unmaintained?
If it's going to be actively supported, is the strategy for the product in line with your intended use for it?
Guess what? In FOSS or closed source you have the option of sticking with whatever version you like. However, in FOSS, you can actually pay coders to keep a fork of the product in line with your intended use. In closed source you don't even have the option of hiring coders to support a legacy project.
Are their suitable replacements for it if that vision diverges from your intended use?
That depends, if you're using a closed source app with proprietary file formats, then the answer is probably, "No." If you are using open doc formats and/or open source software then the answer is most likely, "Yes."
How much time and effort will be spent on the rollout & training associated with the software?
RIBBON! In closed source you are forced into upgrading because older products no longer receive updates. In open source you can pay coders to bring a product into compatibility with a new OS or to patch bugs; Thus, allowing you to use the same product for longer and avoid the whole training issue altogether.
What's the difference between adopting new versions of a closed source application vs migrating to an open source application?
There's more to it than just "If someday the company goes out of business, you still have the source code" - this is not a winning selling point for a lot of businesses, simply because they don't have the expertise in-house, or the money to hire expertise, to support it and continue development themselves, meaning that they're in the same boat with open source if the project just simply dies due to apathy. Major shifts in ownership/stewardship of a piece of important business software is always a reason to review your own strategy with respect to that software's function.
I'd be wary of having a "piece of important business software" that you are in no position to support or maintain. If it's truly important enough to the success of your business then it's insane to not have the option of supporting it in house or creating a community driven fork that you, along with other businesses in the same boat can support.
Bottom line: It's not really that big of a deal. If you're paid to micromanage such cost & time details then it looks like a big deal, but it's not really (How many have survived the UI shock of Ribbon or Vista/Win7?).
Business will continue even if MS Office dies tomorrow due to some massive exploit. Having options is good. If your business is not ready to change the option, then why push to change the option? No, seriously, ask yourself WHY. Those are the important reasons -- not this BS about UI and training, or document compatibility...
There's always a period of adjustment, but it's no more expensive than the adjustment of going from one proprietary product version to the next. (look at XP to Win7).
"What is more puzzling is what the existence of two camps creating such huge codebases for a fundamental application type says about the whole state of open source development at this time. It clearly isn't the idealistic world it tries to present itself as."
How bloody clueless. This is like questioning the fact that we have more than one set of automobile designs and assembly plants, or more than one political party, or multiple soft drink bottling and distribution networks.
Uhh, what's even more puzzling is that the article ignores the fact that since the codebases are both open source, they can both adopt eachother's improvements if they desire. It's not as if the LibreOffice codebase was completely rewritten after the fork -- There is now two major projects working on the same base code.
There's no reason OpenOffice can't backport fixes from LibreOffice, or vise versa.
Don't forget that forks can be consolodated as well. (Beryl was forked from Compiz, now Compiz + Beryl = Compiz-Fusion)
In the close source world it's far more devastating for key developers to leave and start their own project. However, In the FOSS world it's not nearly so bad -- The original project leader looses control of what the forkers commit, but can still take advantage of the work they do (unlike in close source). Additionally, when devs leave a closed source project they can't take the original codebase with them, they have to start from scratch!
Closed Source apps frequently re-implement eachother's features from scratch, whereas FOSS can just fork or incorporate other FOSS code.
Riddle me this O puzzled article author -- Is it not even more puzzling that you don't find the multitude of closed source camps (that are not reusing eachother's code) even more puzzling than the FOSS camps that do?
You'll be happy to know that the DMCA exempts the Library of Congress then:) I believe portions have also been clarified such that archivers are not only allowed to store ditigal backups, but they can reverse the DRM if they can prove that it is for archival purposes.
Of course, you'll probably also be happy to know that the DMCA doesn't mean a thing in most of the world, and that somewhere like Belarus will likely be the "digital Iona" of the future....
Sadly, just making it legal to break DRM doesn't mean the DRM will be broken. I.e. my brother's Zune will not sync with his Linux machine because of encryption -- He's now experiencing the Vendor lock-in that I warned him of.
The point being: Once DRM is perfected it may not matter if it's legal for you to break it -- Encryption done right is very infeasible to break. E.g. DMCA does not require the DRMmers to jail-break your device for you -- What happens if you can't do it any other way?
"Your browser fingerprint appears to be unique among the 1,379,292 tested so far. Currently, we estimate that your browser has a fingerprint that conveys at least 20.4 bits of identifying information." -Panopticlick
I'm thinking opt-out of tracking by cookies, etc., is a throwaway. Google et al no longer need those technologies.
Having a unique fingerprint isn't bad if the fingerprint is also dynamic.
Every site finds my browser fingerprint to be unique -- It changes as a function (SHA1 HMAC) of the current website, time of day, and a secret salt. Fields are re-ordered yet still contain the same information, along with a bit of Base64 in the comments (parenthesis). A few unneeded and duplicate/renamed fonts are "available" or not, Screen resolution is also fudged slightly, not enough to break layouts.
The real downfall is Flash, Java, SilverLight, etc -- Each plugin can help fingerprint. I'm too lazy to add the fuzzing to my Java VM, or Gnash (flash player), and some people use closed source plugins -- there's no helping them... What's to say a closed source plugin (or browser for that matter) won't create a serial number and make it available to each website you visit?
Maybe someday I'll get tired of maintaining my modified browser code and reimplement it as a proper plugin -- Then again, I like being the most unique.
Rice talks of a 'tax on software based on the number and severity of its security bugs.
The tax shall be called "The Apple Tax". Now we know why they're so damn expensive... they have to pay a tax based on the number and severity of security bugs...
Make a typo or logical error? There's a tax for that.(TM)
How about we reform EULA law such that if you pay for software, and it is full of bugs that get exploited, you can sue those responsible? Why not take the actual damages straight to the buggy software writers? Surely this would be even better a motivation than a "bug tax"; Additionally, this makes quantifying the penalty amount much easier. Developers pay according to how much damage the bugs have actually caused! </sarcasm>
I agree that bugs are bad, but this tax idea just stupid. Everyone makes mistakes, security is a moving target, computers and their applications are getting more complex faster than the economy is willing to pay for secure code.
To all that believe this sort of tax is a Good Idea(tm) I have only one word for you: BETA
"no more swapping, everything is non-volatile-RAM, with constant addressing cost" becomes plausible
Wouldn't Non-Volatile memory just be called memory esp. given that, by definition, memory recalls past events.
This family of memory is not only plausible, it has existed before -- it is how the model of a "Turing Machine" operates. In fact, our first reel to reel magnetic memory systems had this "non-volatile memory" of which you speak due to the absence of large quantities of RAM (we had sequential access memory instead), programs were executed as read from tape, and variables were often interleaved with instruction codes because seek time was a huge performance issue.
On another note: Perhaps the "no more swapping" model you speak of would draw less power if it used swapping to help cope with fragmentation? Or, perhaps each allocation unit (page), could be turned on or off individually.
Slashdot Mirror
Tell me why a person has no right to profit from their labor, and I'll answer your question.
The product of your labour is only valuable due to the fact it includes huge portions of the public culture's resources.
Language - Did you invent the language your work is produced in? Did you invent the concepts and notions of word play, drama, suspense or modern cinematic treatments thereof?
No. You are standing on the shoulders of giants -- In proportion to your own work, the inclusion of the public culture's resources far outweighs your contribution to any thought-product protected by copyright.
Many Inventions are far more creative and/or useful than the works of film-makers or authors, yet the former only receive a ~20 year monopoly with which they may profit from their creations. Copyright holders enjoy a monopoly over their creations for Lifetime + 70 years -- THAT'S TWO GENERATIONS OF HUMANS AND THEIR CULTURE!
The original intent of copyright law was not to prevent the general public from making reproductions, or remixes of a copyrighted work. Originally, copyrights were enacted to prevent Publishers form abusing the public and creators of works -- Publishing contracts currently provide them an end-run around this. Copyright laws have been turned against the general public and the content authors. Copyright violations are so prevalent largely due to the fact that copying is so cheap that reproductions are essentially in infinite supply -- Economics 101: Regardless of production cost; Price tends toward zero as supply increases to infinity.
I do not have a license to make reproductions of a DVD, yet it must surely be duplicated at least FOUR TIMES PER VIEW (once within the DVD SATA cache, once in main RAM, another in my VIDEO CARD, and a fourth on my monitor's display). I must break copyright laws under which you operate completely no less than 4 times to consume your works; That's what I call irrelevant laws. (Note, only recently have I been allowed to legally view most DVDs on Linux -- I compiled the player myself == unlicensed player).
The very state of the culture itself is what makes your product have worth.
Please explain how much worth any thought-media is in proportion to the entire human culture's collective contribution to said work. Please explain how relevant pay-per copy models are now that copies are in infinite supply. Please explain to me why basic economic principals do not apply to industries that profit from copyright.
When you can fully explain to me why continued abuse of the general public is allowed instead of reformation of the ancient copyright laws considering that 200 years of technological advancement have made the laws irrelevant, then I'll extrapolate the amount you may earn by producing those works -- It may be a negative amount due to the harm that abused copyright laws have caused the public.
If not for "piracy" there would be no incentive to change the model -- The Piracy epidemic exists because modern technology has rendered the pay-per-copy model irrelevant.
I agree that creators should be compensated for their works, but I do not agree to TWO GENERATIONS OF MONOPOLY for works that are only a small fraction original. I can see why some would, in protest, ignore copyright laws in order to offset the absurdity of the state of copyright laws -- CAN YOU NOT?
As much as everybody hates DMCA takedown notices around here, it seems like that would be the proper avenue for this sort of thing. It's certainly not an abuse of the DMCA in this case. Apple would likely respond relatively quickly so they don't lose their safe harbor.
While I agree DMCA takedown would be best, how do you do so if they do not respond to your e-mail?
Also: Apple's editorial control has already lost them the "safe harbor".
The review process is not there to do anything of the sort. The review process is to make a reasonable attempt to ensure that the application doesn't do anything harmful and that it follows all of the programming and content related guidelines set forth by Apple. The review process makes no claims that it will prevent similar apps from appearing or that the apps are actually good.
Nope, The approval process has no other purpose but to deny apps Apple doesn't like.
Native apps w/o source code are next to impossible to review aside from using a full code path coverage tool. A tool could be used to ensure all code paths are tested during approval process, but clearly Apple isn't doing this or else 15 year olds wouldn't be able to sneak tethering into a flash-light app.
If tethering can slip through unnoticed, why not malware? WHAT'S THE POINT?
So in summary:
1. It will be incomplete
2. It will be closed
3. It will be hard to remove
4. It may not be "optional"
5. It will cause problems with the browser and maybe the OS.
6. It will be installed in Firefox as well, then MS H.264 will be the universal exploit attack vector -- Finally, crackers can create a single drive-by-download exploit that works in all major browsers.
LAMP stacks are the standard, everyone should be using Linux.
Generally speaking, any site that uses browser detection and refuses to support an unknown browser (or specifically refuses Chrome) will not be visited by me..
Broken browser detection is because browser detection != feature detection.
I test for the existence of supported features like document.attachEvent vs document.addEventListener, then use what is supported regardless of browser.
Checking by user-agent string is just wrong unless you are not using any JS at all -- User-agent switcher does not defeat my browser detection, and when IE9000 finally supports .addEventListener then it will get actually get used -- Forward compatible JS detects the features it uses.
CSS / (X)HTML features is a different beast -- I suggest conditional comments to isolate IE.
Meh, different people designate failure based on different criteria.
My bro got an iPod touch for x-mas, Giddy as all hell he plugged it in to his computer only to find that iTunes is required, but doesn't work with Linux.
"This is the most amazing piece of crap I've ever seen" -- My 18yr old brother (while en route to exchange an iPod Touch).
IMHO, Apple = Fail. Can't run the software for their devices on anything but OSX or Windows -- I don't understand; I write cross platform code (Win, Mac, *nix) all the time, it isn't that difficult. Sure, I can run iTunes in an VM, to make it work on my bro's Linux box, so it's not stopping people who really want to do that... Why shun the customers that just want devices that work without a big hassle? I thought that was Apple's MO, What's up with that?
(Note - My bro's older iPod works on Linux... iOS == DRM Fail? WTF Apple?)
Screw that flash laden b/s.
Point your download accelerators at these links, and watch them in a proper video player.
Vint Cerf Keynote
X and the Future of Linux Graphics
(right click, save as...)
I know people will hate me for saying this, but in a way, it's better if everyone sees practically the same movie. If we're all seeing slightly different views, then we won't all have quite the same experience. I think there's something to be said for having a particular view of the scene intended by the director.
Hmm, maybe, but also: Plays, Concerts, Live performances. In R/L no two people have the same perspective at the same time, yet these actual 3D scenes are fine.
Additionally, what if a director had the option of including elements that change a scene depending on viewing angle?
On one side of the theater people are "D'awww"ing over two lovers about to kiss for the first time -- On the other side of the audience people are on the edge of their seat in suspense because they can see that one of the lovers is holding a butcher-knife behind their back.
Say it with me: Replayability. It works for videogames, perhaps it might not be such a bad thing for movies?
This makes me glad I use Google Chrome. As well as the speed, of course.
Who doesn't use "the speed"; I agree, using it makes everything better -- Just don't get too addicted. However, Chrome is overrated, IMHO; Mirrors work just as well.
It still shows up in the html. The italics are being suppressed by css to the effect of
Which is quite fashionable, it tells the browser to to discard all default styles, so that the designer can build them from the ground up. It also leads to the rather interesting
later on.
The mind does boggle.
Yeah, but this just means we should start emphasising text by placing it between <em> and </em> tags; The <strong> and </strong> tags should be used to denote words with increased impact.
These tags work. I realise that having to switch the tags is stupid, but that's what the W3C says to do, so that's what I'll do. I'm not going to complain about it -- that takes longer to do than adopting the new recommendation... (It's nice to see Slashdot adopting recommendations, even if they are crappy ones.)
As far as I can tell, not one of these individuals can be charged under the Computer Misuse Act (but IANAL) - the DDOS was effectively reaslised across many individuals whose net effect was a DDOS. Further, surely they could claim that their action was simply an expression of their right to free assembly? Anyone any insights here?
DDOS attacks are malicious in nature and designed to harm a target. It would be difficult to convince a reasonable person that they are equitable to a peaceful assembly. A better analogy would be to compare it to a mob riot.
Except that in a mob riot physical property can get destroyed, people can be injured or killed -- it's not the same.
Normally when a person goes to a store, they do not linger, their presence is transient; Protesters have a less transient presence -- Their presence is felt by customers who would enter the store for a while, but not permanently; Some customers may be turned away, but no one should be injured.
When all you have is the Internet, every thing looks like a packet. You can't protest in front of say, Mastercard.com. The only presence you have is your web traffic. It's not like the packets sent by LOIC were maliciously crafted -- the alleged "attack toolkit" was very ineffective as one; It was intended to be used as a protest toolkit (Intent should be considered). The protest toolkit didn't attempt to hide the identities of those involved, LOIC didn't infect and use people's machines without permission (as bot-nets do), and it didn't perform a reflected attack to multiply its effect -- Each participant only contributed their own presence (web traffic).
The protest's web traffic was felt by those who would enter the affected web site for a while, but not permanently; Some visitors were turned away, but no one was injured.
Some visitors could not just ignore the protest and enter the web site, much like how a large enough real life protest may cause drivers to pause momentarily, the combined effect, known as rubbernecking, can cause temporary vehicle traffic problems which could prevent a customer from ignoring the protests effects.
To me, Anonymous' digital protest has a lot more similarities to a real life peaceful protest than to an angry mob setting fires to cars, smashing windows, looting, and killing or injuring innocent bystanders; The protests were very different than a bot-net controlled by a small number of malcontents which infects thousands of machines against the will of their owners and uses them in a (R(D))DOS attack.
Anonymous participants intended to protest digitally.
When all you have is a hammer... Well, all they had was the Internet.
I deal with mostly ASCII text, and sideways give me a crick in the neck. (T_T)
Now, If they really wanted to impress me I would be able to print my own keycaps, and customize the scancodes the keys generate! (^_^)
Until then, that keypad, it's.. just...so.... (-_-) .zZZ
If you can show people that what their government wants to do wont actually stop whatever criminal activity people want the government to stop (and more to the point, suggest an alternative that will be more effective in stopping the criminal activity in question) people might just listen.
Your assumption is wrong: The Onion Router provides the proof you seek.
You see, no matter how blatant, commonplace or accessible the proof is people just won't listen; People are stupid -- It's the Wizard's First Rule: Some people will believe anything if they fear it to be true.
The crux of his argument is simple: 600 million years of evolution has designed eyes that focus and converge in parallel, at the same distance.
That same 600 million years of evolution has designed humans that frequently focus at different depths to focus upon points of interest. Both 2D and 3D films fail to allow us to focus anywhere but on the screen.
By this logic, 2D movies don't "work and will never work"; By this logic, the ONLY visual entertainment that can work is live: Plays, Opera, Concerts, etc. Unfortunately, it's not economical or practical to produce real time special effects and have actors deliver perfect performances with the same frequency that movies are played...
Once again, by the flim critics' own line of logic, I have once again arrived at the conclusion I always arrive at when critics speak: There is no need for film critics.
(...It would be awesome to have my own playhouse & players that could immediately put on any of the plays I want on demand; Sadly, a childhood incident involving a lost balloon, molten cheese and a bear's crotch has left petrified of those creepy animatronics.)
It's in the Facebook terms of service that you agreed to by using Facebook
2. Sharing Your Content and Information
You own all of the content and information you post on Facebook, and you can control how it is shared through your privacy and application settings. In addition:
I've yet to determine if "any IP content that you post on or in conjunction with Facebook" applies to IP posted to my own website on pages that include a Facebook "like" button...
Also, the "IP License ends when you delete your IP content or your account unless your content has been shared with others, and they have not deleted it." Seeing as it's not enough for you to delete anything it must also be deleted by everyone you shared the info with too, and even after deleting, you agree that it's not deleted, just in a recycle bin -- It's effectively impossible to remove your images and/or other IP.
proprieterroize (V): the introduction of proprietary or incompatible features to an otherwise standard product for the express purpose of limiting the customers' purchasing options in order to artificially drive up the product's cost.
A portmanteau of proprietary and terrorize often used to describe vendor lock in strategies.
"Although the two cables appear identical, I can't use a standard USB cable to charge my GPS; I have to use Garmin's proprieterrorized USB cable instead."
----
Appropriation would mean that they took control of the standard USB protocol to bend all users of it to their ultimate will; Instead they simply produce incompatible USB cables for their own products (not all USB products) to bend consumers to their will and establish vendor lock in.
It would be silly to think that a company would have to appropriate their own products. How does one forcefully gain control over something they already control?
I'm glad to see that software repositories (app stores) are finally making their way into everything from phones to Windows (8?) and iOS.
However, I'm pissed off at the limited and closed way that these repositories are designed.
I get that the repo management should be able to punt any app they don't like. However, the users should also be able to add additional repositories (sources for downloading apps).
It would be great to have a unified app selection process instead of having to jump between repos -- Way to take a great idea, and neuter it.
It's not a concern that's specific to FOSS software, but in fairness, a change in direction for a product that is a fairly important component of your workplace infrastructure *should* be cause for a re-evaluation.
I agree, look at migrating from MS Office 2003 to MS Office 2010 -- Did you re-evaluate MS Office when they adopted a different direction (ribbon)?
Is the software going to be actively supported, upgraded, maintained? Is it going to be left to die a slow, languishing death-by-neglect?
You mean, like how older versions of closed source applications are left unsupported, and unmaintained?
If it's going to be actively supported, is the strategy for the product in line with your intended use for it?
Guess what? In FOSS or closed source you have the option of sticking with whatever version you like. However, in FOSS, you can actually pay coders to keep a fork of the product in line with your intended use. In closed source you don't even have the option of hiring coders to support a legacy project.
Are their suitable replacements for it if that vision diverges from your intended use?
That depends, if you're using a closed source app with proprietary file formats, then the answer is probably, "No." If you are using open doc formats and/or open source software then the answer is most likely, "Yes."
How much time and effort will be spent on the rollout & training associated with the software?
RIBBON! In closed source you are forced into upgrading because older products no longer receive updates. In open source you can pay coders to bring a product into compatibility with a new OS or to patch bugs; Thus, allowing you to use the same product for longer and avoid the whole training issue altogether.
What's the difference between adopting new versions of a closed source application vs migrating to an open source application?
There's more to it than just "If someday the company goes out of business, you still have the source code" - this is not a winning selling point for a lot of businesses, simply because they don't have the expertise in-house, or the money to hire expertise, to support it and continue development themselves, meaning that they're in the same boat with open source if the project just simply dies due to apathy. Major shifts in ownership/stewardship of a piece of important business software is always a reason to review your own strategy with respect to that software's function.
I'd be wary of having a "piece of important business software" that you are in no position to support or maintain. If it's truly important enough to the success of your business then it's insane to not have the option of supporting it in house or creating a community driven fork that you, along with other businesses in the same boat can support.
Bottom line: It's not really that big of a deal. If you're paid to micromanage such cost & time details then it looks like a big deal, but it's not really (How many have survived the UI shock of Ribbon or Vista/Win7?).
Business will continue even if MS Office dies tomorrow due to some massive exploit. Having options is good. If your business is not ready to change the option, then why push to change the option? No, seriously, ask yourself WHY. Those are the important reasons -- not this BS about UI and training, or document compatibility...
There's always a period of adjustment, but it's no more expensive than the adjustment of going from one proprietary product version to the next. (look at XP to Win7).
"What is more puzzling is what the existence of two camps creating such huge codebases for a fundamental application type says about the whole state of open source development at this time. It clearly isn't the idealistic world it tries to present itself as."
How bloody clueless. This is like questioning the fact that we have more than one set of automobile designs and assembly plants, or more than one political party, or multiple soft drink bottling and distribution networks.
Uhh, what's even more puzzling is that the article ignores the fact that since the codebases are both open source, they can both adopt eachother's improvements if they desire. It's not as if the LibreOffice codebase was completely rewritten after the fork -- There is now two major projects working on the same base code.
There's no reason OpenOffice can't backport fixes from LibreOffice, or vise versa.
Don't forget that forks can be consolodated as well.
(Beryl was forked from Compiz, now Compiz + Beryl = Compiz-Fusion)
In the close source world it's far more devastating for key developers to leave and start their own project. However, In the FOSS world it's not nearly so bad -- The original project leader looses control of what the forkers commit, but can still take advantage of the work they do (unlike in close source). Additionally, when devs leave a closed source project they can't take the original codebase with them, they have to start from scratch!
Closed Source apps frequently re-implement eachother's features from scratch, whereas FOSS can just fork or incorporate other FOSS code.
Riddle me this O puzzled article author -- Is it not even more puzzling that you don't find the multitude of closed source camps (that are not reusing eachother's code) even more puzzling than the FOSS camps that do?
You'll be happy to know that the DMCA exempts the Library of Congress then :) I believe portions have also been clarified such that archivers are not only allowed to store ditigal backups, but they can reverse the DRM if they can prove that it is for archival purposes.
Of course, you'll probably also be happy to know that the DMCA doesn't mean a thing in most of the world, and that somewhere like Belarus will likely be the "digital Iona" of the future....
Sadly, just making it legal to break DRM doesn't mean the DRM will be broken. I.e. my brother's Zune will not sync with his Linux machine because of encryption -- He's now experiencing the Vendor lock-in that I warned him of.
The point being: Once DRM is perfected it may not matter if it's legal for you to break it -- Encryption done right is very infeasible to break. E.g. DMCA does not require the DRMmers to jail-break your device for you -- What happens if you can't do it any other way?
"Your browser fingerprint appears to be unique among the 1,379,292 tested so far. Currently, we estimate that your browser has a fingerprint that conveys at least 20.4 bits of identifying information." -Panopticlick
I'm thinking opt-out of tracking by cookies, etc., is a throwaway. Google et al no longer need those technologies.
Having a unique fingerprint isn't bad if the fingerprint is also dynamic.
Every site finds my browser fingerprint to be unique -- It changes as a function (SHA1 HMAC) of the current website, time of day, and a secret salt. Fields are re-ordered yet still contain the same information, along with a bit of Base64 in the comments (parenthesis). A few unneeded and duplicate/renamed fonts are "available" or not, Screen resolution is also fudged slightly, not enough to break layouts.
The real downfall is Flash, Java, SilverLight, etc -- Each plugin can help fingerprint. I'm too lazy to add the fuzzing to my Java VM, or Gnash (flash player), and some people use closed source plugins -- there's no helping them... What's to say a closed source plugin (or browser for that matter) won't create a serial number and make it available to each website you visit?
Maybe someday I'll get tired of maintaining my modified browser code and reimplement it as a proper plugin -- Then again, I like being the most unique.
Curiously, the article titled "Earth" is the tenth result for the search term "Earth".
Well, there was a lot more written about that particular planet, but that entry got edited down to just: "Mostly harmless."
Also, you may find this quote applicable:
--
"We apologize for the inconvenience" -God’s final message to His creation.
Rice talks of a 'tax on software based on the number and severity of its security bugs.
The tax shall be called "The Apple Tax". Now we know why they're so damn expensive... they have to pay a tax based on the number and severity of security bugs...
It seems like just yesterday the Safari browser was carpet bombing hundreds of malicious files to my desktop without my permission.
Make a typo or logical error? There's a tax for that.(TM)
How about we reform EULA law such that if you pay for software, and it is full of bugs that get exploited, you can sue those responsible? Why not take the actual damages straight to the buggy software writers? Surely this would be even better a motivation than a "bug tax"; Additionally, this makes quantifying the penalty amount much easier. Developers pay according to how much damage the bugs have actually caused! </sarcasm>
I agree that bugs are bad, but this tax idea just stupid. Everyone makes mistakes, security is a moving target, computers and their applications are getting more complex faster than the economy is willing to pay for secure code.
To all that believe this sort of tax is a Good Idea(tm) I have only one word for you: BETA
"no more swapping, everything is non-volatile-RAM, with constant addressing cost" becomes plausible
Wouldn't Non-Volatile memory just be called memory esp. given that, by definition, memory recalls past events.
This family of memory is not only plausible, it has existed before -- it is how the model of a "Turing Machine" operates. In fact, our first reel to reel magnetic memory systems had this "non-volatile memory" of which you speak due to the absence of large quantities of RAM (we had sequential access memory instead), programs were executed as read from tape, and variables were often interleaved with instruction codes because seek time was a huge performance issue.
On another note: Perhaps the "no more swapping" model you speak of would draw less power if it used swapping to help cope with fragmentation? Or, perhaps each allocation unit (page), could be turned on or off individually.