Instead of re-inventing the wheel why not just use Fidonet?
Hell, I was using Fidonet since before the Internet was available to the masses.
Tell you what, why don't we let those that have ideas, and itches to scratch rally supporters for their own implementations based on their own merits, and let the best protocol win?
Sometimes you have to break an egg to make an omelet; Sometimes you have to re-invent a wheel or axle to innovate.
By definition, that doesn't work. A certificate is the product of a certification authority, and it certifies you are who you say you are. You're talking about web of trust. Very different model, and even less trustworthy than a CA.
::Sigh:: Some CA's are more "trustworthy" than others. The current CA system is broken... let me repeat that: OUR CA SYSTEM IS BROKEN, since, for example, China's CINNIC CA can create a valid cert for Google.com without Google's permission.
At least a web of trust has a chain of signatures that I can validate by personally contacting each person in the chain: "Hey, Alice, my good friend, you signed Bob's cert, what's his number I need to find out about Carl since Bob signed Carlo's cert, and Carlos signed Daisy's" I can even decide how long of a chain of trust I allow between me and someone else. I can also decide who can and can't sign my key.
Remember that time that a whole crapload of Internet data was "accidentally" routed through China? If CINNIC had created fraudulent certs, and inserted themselves into the connections MITM style, your web browser would display the "IT'S SECURE" bar and all that SSL encryption would be useless.
Not to mention, any country can coerce and gag-order a CA that resides in said country for the purpose of creating fake certs. If the US coerced Thawte to make a fake Google.com cert, they can just insert themselves right into your "secure" connection, and you wouldn't even be able to detect the tap, and Google wouldn't even know either.
If you have Firefox: Preferences > Advanced > Encryption > View Certificates. Remove the root CAs that you don't trust. Yes, CINNIC is in there by default.
It's possible to create a better CA system that is tiered as our current system, and prevents the CAs from generating certs that were not requested. It's very simple using public-key crypto. I am developing such a system for use in my game's mod community. "It arn't that hard"
TL;DR: The Current SSL & CA system is just a security theater...
This is not the same thing at all. By blocking Amazon, they are not just interfering with the business of Amazon but third party resellers who sell through amazon.
Amazon is not preventing Wikileaks from using another service.
Now let's consider for a moment what you just wrote... no, actually, let's not, lets just rewrite it and swap the parties involved.
This is not the same thing at all. By blocking Wikileaks, they are not just interfering with the business of Wikileaks but third party leakers who leak through Wikileaks.
Anonymous is not preventing Amazon from using a better service.
So, you see... it is the same thing. Amazon is protesting the actions of Wikileaks on behalf of the US Gov. Anonymous is protesting the actions of Amazon on the behalf of Wikileaks supporters.
Here's a nice thought: Amazon's servers are just waiting to send me data, if I don't want that data I block it via ad-blockers. My client is just waiting to send Amazon data, If Amazon doesn't want my packets, they can block them via filters.
Don't like it? GTFO the web. There's no reason Amazon can't distribute Internet enabled "apps" you must use to access their content, and block all other unapproved data. I risk being DDoSed and having crazy over-the-cap overages by being connected to the Internet, and spreading my IP address all over the web... so does Amazon. They may be at higher risk, but my overages would cost me a higher percent of my time and money.
Denying Amazon servers the right to serve up their own content is not the same as Amazon not hosting Wikileaks. They aren't even in the same ballpark. The right to refuse to do business with someone, for whatever reason is no where near the same as denying OTHERS the right to do business with someone.
Please explain how Amazon is not also "denying OTHERS the right to do business with someone". Eg: Amazon is also denying WIKILEAKS the right to distribute information with users. What is Wikileaks business again? Right. Information distribution.
You can argue that Wikileaks can just take their hosting plan elsewhere, and use a different domain name. I can then argue that Amazon.com can also just use a different domain name / hosting plan as well...
What's good for the goose, is good for the gander. Don't want my packets? Set up a better filter or GTFO the Internet.
We need to coin a new term that fits. How about "wreaking," a portmanteau of "web" and "freaking," giving it technological evolutionary significance, and it has the benefit of also being a real word with similar connotations.
I prefer "Using", considering that they are simply using the intended IP (Internet Protocol) en masse.
Much like those that overload a telecom by organizing a coordinated mass phone call campaign would be called, "callers"; Those that utilize the Internet to perform their goals should be called "users".
Folks that use their own means to protest should be called "protesters". Much like how sit-ins did no physical harm, neither do too many IP packets.
Those that cause trouble by using technology should be called "trouble makers", optionally prefixed with the adjective "pesky".
The group Anonymous, would simply be "pesky, trouble making, Internet using protesters", which is far more descriptive and has the benefit of also explaining exactly what they are.
On another note: "Hacker" is a silly term that I propose be replaced by "exceptionally skilled programmer".
Furthermore, smoking crystal meth is a choice, at least the first time you do it, yet most people are perfectly OK with judging that behavior and saying it it morally wrong,
Citation needed. Recreational drug use has been around since long before current social structure and laws came into being.
By your logic, would not alcohol also be judged by "most people" as morally wrong? What about marijuana? Apparently you are ignorant of the 60's & 70's, and/or have a very skewed view of what exactly a moral is.
Recreational drug use is recreational. We have warlords in Mexico running amok because our idiotic government won't legalize and tax the recreational drugs that give them power.
Remember the prohibition of alcohol and the gangsters that the sell of illegal alcohol funded? Clearly, people would rather purchase their recreational drugs from a safe, clean, regulated environment such as a grocery store, liquor store or pharmacy rather than purchasing their drug from a gangster... Evidence: Gangsters are not selling illegal alcohol to the public at large now that it is legal. Tobacco Cigarettes are nearly addictive as heroin, yet they are legal and not "morally" wrong to most people; The common belief is, "If you want to smoke, fine, just don't do it around those that do not smoke."
I would argue that most people judge moderate recreational drug use (such as drinking wine, liquor, beer) as moral. Many people I know only judge the use of other recreational drugs (such as marijuana, cocaine, crystal meth) as "wrong" because they are illegal. Many of these same people have told me that if using said drugs were not against the law then it would not be "wrong" to use these drugs in moderation. Therefore, I posit that this it is not so much a moral issue, but one of legality.
Abuse of any drug is wrong simply because abuse inherently implies wrongdoing. Please do not confuse Abuse with Use.
Apparently you've never heard of copyright nor royalties.
The cost is not in distributing the content, it's in displaying it.
That makes no sense. You see, it's $5.00 more per month for another set top box. No matter how many channels I have subscribed to.
So, for just $10.00 more per month (1/8th my monthly bill) I can be "displaying" 200% of the content I'm currently displaying, yet my bill will only increase by 12.5%
Obviously: the largest charges on my bill are for "distribution", not "display", otherwise my bill would double with each additional set-top-box... Yet, it doesn't... it's only $5.00 more per additional display.
Look, those misleading commercials piss me off too, but I've found a mitigation technique.
Every time you hear: "To The Cloud!" Just imagine the camera zooms out to reveal a city wide flash of brightness, followed by a boiling mushroom shaped cloud, and a few seconds later, the sonic shock wave.
The NYT wouldn't ever say, "Look if you go after our reporter we'll release even more information!" They would take a stand or not take a stand. So Wikileaks really throws any media protection they may have had out the window. They've moved into a retaliatory mode. I'm not sure this doesn't make their actions combative and therefore a legitimate threat.
The NYT has much more resources and people than Wikileaks does.
Put yourself in their shoes: I have all this juicy information that I think the public should know about. I want to comb through, redact, and release the info (with the help of large news orgs like NYT), but I'm scared that I may get disappeared before I've had the chance. I've distributed an encrypted copy of the info for which the key will be released if I'm dead to make sure the info can't be suppressed, and to reduce the benefit of killing me in the first place.
I'd go a step further...cable boxes and satellite boxes are pretty advanced....so I should only pay for the time that I'm watching the channels too.
Weeelll, you see, the thing is: It doesn't actually cost us anything let you access 10 of our channels vs 500 channels.
This is because Satellite TV transmits all channels all the time to just about everywhere around you. So, it really doesn't cost us anything more if you watch TV constantly instead of only 10 minutes a day, and satellite distribution to 1 million customers doesn't cost us any more than distribution to one customer.
We've successfully tricked most people into thinking that a huge price increase for twice the number of channels is reasonable when, in fact, all we do is change the DRM keys in your set-top box so that you can decode the extra channels that we are sending to you (and everyone else in your city) anyhow.
Oh, and extra monthly fee for having a 2nd set top box? Ha ha ha, we make you pay for the set-top box, then charge you extra per month for something that costs us nothing to transmit! People gladly hand us more money Hand over Fist, it's amazing how dumb they are!
With Cable it's a bit different, we pay to maintain the lines, but other than that, it's the same.
TV is a purely distribution only system, there is no "on demand". The Internet is a totally different beast (which we use to provide some on-demand services). With the Internet, we try to send you only the data you request. Actually, we don't do that, we send any data destined for your IP, whether you wanted it or not, so beware of DDoS attacks because your pay-as-you-go bill will be humorously expensive.
My mistake, when I say "Tablet PC", I always have in mind my own "Tablet PC", which is a "laptop" with a swivel touch-screen that folds flat to transform into a "tablet"... Best of both worlds (a bit thick for a tablet, but has a full keyboard when I need it).
::sigh:: My point isn't about what device Google's newest OS is or isn't installed on. My point is that Chrome OS isn't needed at all, and, as you've pointed out, further lends unnecessary fragmentation to the market.
You can even purchase Android tablets & netbooks right now.
Sure, Google might not release a chrome OS tablet right now, but that doesn't mean that they won't, or won't let other companies do it. PS. I won't buy a notebook that can't transform into a tablet or vise versa; Other devices just seems like they're missing features for no good reason.
A few flash grenades is all you need. Ever seen a flash grenade through night vision goggles? They're "brighter" than without the goggles (obscures more visible area).
when a company finds a way to make the world a little more foolproof, the world will make a better fool....
Yes, they will just hold down shift while typing.
"According to Google, this will improve the quality of the comments, because people will not be able to write all in capital letters.
If Google's goal was to limit the number of annoying all-caps posts they should not be relying on the removal of a caps lock key on a device that very few of their users will actually be using... (In other words: they lied to you; Google removed the caps lock key because their hardware designer is a member of the Jobsian Minimalist Cult.)
Web Coder Rule #1: Validate All Input Server Side.
Removing the caps is akin to validating the input on the Client Side with JavaScript, and not validating it at all Server Side. This is a huge mistake.
IMO, since Google employs at least one high-school level coder, they should get said coder to validate user post content on the server side: Replace long strings of all-caps words with lower case equivalents.
Hints: In Perl, the "lc" builtin function. In C++, it's the "tolower" function. In Java or JavaScript use "String.toLowerCase", in PHP use "strtolower", in Python use... wait, no, in Python you're screwed, try to write your own locale independent to lowercase function (good luck with that. damn Python, WTF!).
Bonus: provide a button next to posts that were converted to lowercase so that I can see the original post's text if I so desire (False positives are always a possibility; Post could be laden with acronyms).
Why the continuing bother with Caps Lock, SysRq, Scroll Lock, and Break? Does anyone use them? at least, any number of people above statistical noise?
Yes, I do use them all.
Ctrl+Break = break out of a console program or script (interrupt signal).
Pause = Stop the initial BIOS startup text from disappearing from view before I've had a chance to read it.
Caps Lock = Type a $CONSTANT_VARIABLE_NAME without having to hold down shift.
PrintScreen = On Windows, or KDE4: copies a screenshot to the clipboard; on Gnome take a screenshot and opens the "Save Screenshot" dialog.
SysReq = Recover from freezes, reboot without trashing the filesystem, etc Instead of rebooting on Linux, next time try entering the following sequence of keys with Alt+SysReq held down: R E I S U B (allow a few seconds between each letter). American Simplified (Dvorak) users: P . C O G X. see link for key meanings
Scroll Lock = Change computers that my Keyboard/Video/Mouse Switch is displaying/controlling (when Pressed 3 times in succession) or toggle between scrolling the entire page or moving the cursor (I hear Excel supports the latter behavior as well).
Just because you are not a "power user" or a programmer doesn't mean that those who are make up a percentage below "statistical noise" ratio. Also: Just because you don't use these keys, doesn't mean the person who is diagnosing or fixing your computer problem doesn't need the keys.
The Chrome notebook will be solely for web applications. My most recently crafted web application is a secure remote terminal (SSH client) using JavaScript and HTML5 (web sockets). I will not purchase the device if I am lacking any of the above keys or caps lock (I use caps lock for naming $CONSTANTS and typing acronyms like "SCOTUS").
Note: ChromeOS's web-apps aren't like plugins... I hope there is a ChromeOS plugin framework. My first ChromeOS plugin will be to emulate a caps lock switch via pressing shift twice in rapid succession, or both shifts at once (provided that Google sticks with their U KANT HAS CAPS policy...
On another note: Seriously Google? You folks are CODERS. You can DETECT all-caps posts and convert them to lowercase. Hell, some languages (like Perl or C++) have a simple "lc" or "tolower" function. You could even provide a little "aA" button next to such converted posts that allows you to view the original content... Removing the Caps key is fucking stupid. One of your hardware designers has too much time on their hands and should be fired (they obviously can't code to save their life).
Sure, but that's far fetched from the ability that cookies and the likes of Google Analytics offer for marketers. It's stupid to say "this won't end it all" and think it's better to do nothing.
Only the uninformed think I'm stupid when I say these privacy features won't stop the tracking.
You don't have to add features to your web-browser in order to eliminate tracking. I use a VM and a commonly distributed VM image of an OS with a browser installed. Besides the IP address I look just like everyone else using the same VM image. My IP is transient, so I turn off my modem when I'm not using it.
It's foolish to call others stupid when you are ignorant of the topic at hand.
It's fully possible to do everything that you can do with native technology with web technologies". Which sounds pretty dubious,
Pretty easy, actually — just add some way to execute machine code via javascript or something. Granted, there are some issues with this strategy.
Chrome's V8 JS engine already compiles JavaScript into machine code to gain performance... Granted, there are some security issues with this strategy (note: Firefox, IE & Safari also run JS as machine code).
Provide some bindings for JS to take advantage of OpenGL (like WebGL), and sockets (like WebSockets), and yeah, you can do just about anything with JS compiled into machine code as you can with C compiled into machine code.
IMO, machine code should run in a hardware supported VM environment to help prevent exploits... Davlik is a software VM, perhaps this should have just been an Android tablet... I just can't wait to fully "jail break" a Chrome OS tablet and install Android on it (I already develop for Android... Google, STOP FRAGMENTING THE MARKET).
Think about it. Everyone wants easy access and control over their own info. What easier way to achieve this than a centralized home server?
Want all of your music & movies & data in the "cloud"? Why not just have your own stable cloud at home that can sync & stream your data to all of your fragmented year-long-lifespan (disposable) mobile devices?
If only someone made a cheap and reliable OS that could work as both a desktop and/or a server... Too bad MS has artificial remote connection limits in their OS, and Apple OS can't be used except on their pricey hardware.
If only the free and open source Linux OS I use for desktop computing could be also be used as server...::sigh:: I guess my dreams of owning my own cloud and r-synching encrypted backups between family and friends will never be a reality.
In this new age of information, exact data duplication and instant worldwide distribution is easy, cheap and commonplace.
Our old laws do not coincide with the capabilities of today.
Think of it this way: I am a programmer, I work on open-source software. I get paid to do so. I only get paid when I do work. I have also worked on closed-source applications, I also only got paid for the work I did on those products.
I don't get paid when I sit on my ass and let people copy the past work I have done. I place adverts on my documentation & distribution sites to recoup the costs of hosting the data -- I get paid when the work of serving the data takes place, and I must pay to have machines online that make my data available.
I don't get paid when duplicates are created using other people's hardware. I do get paid for my work when I assist other people in the use of software with their hardware.
A janitor does not get paid when they are not cleaning. A football player does not get paid if their contract expires and they no longer play football. A barber does not get paid when they are not cutting hair. A construction worker does not get paid when they are not building. A police officer does not get paid when they are not on duty.
Artists should, and do get paid when they work. When a painter paints a painting they can sell the original. When an author pens a book or script, they can sell it to a publisher (many times they are paid in advance). When a musician plays for an audience or recording studio they are doing work, they get paid.
When a publisher is mass producing a book of paintings, a novel, or an album of songs the artist is not working, they get paid a small fraction of what the publisher makes, if anything at all. An artist may help production via book-signings, appearing at sales events or displaying their art in exhibitions; This is work for which they should and do get paid.
In the age of information "publishing" is so cheap, easy, and commonplace that anyone can do it, and basic economic principals are observed: No matter the demand, as supply approaches infinity cost tends toward zero.
Economics are no different today than before the information age. The only thing that has changed is that we all have our own affordable data duplication machines. This has brought the cost of copies down to nearly nil.
How many times were these words copied between routers before you saw them? All Internet traffic, even iTunes data, is copied many times before it reaches the destination. The old copy laws simply can not be upheld -- Are all the router operators between the Amazon MP3 server and my PC subject to their EULA or even copyright law?
If cheap & reliable robotic janitors become commonplace, janitors have less work to do, and the janitorial industry changes appropriately. Automobile assembly line workers have already been through this transition.
Bottom line: Eventually artists & authors will only get paid when they do work, just like anyone else. They will not be able to capitalize on money generated by distribution of copies of their prior work.. Copies are infinitely available, and therefore worth nil.
Since cheap & reliable data copiers have become commonplace, the copy-business must be reformed. No matter how much the copy industry resists the change, they can't fight economics and technology forever. The media industry must, and will change to accommodate the new age; Payment models will be reformed.
We live at the cusp of the new age, the stresses we feel are expected.
The "original intent" was to promote religious freedom. If your religion says it's against God's law (and therefore offensive) to masturbate then don't do it; It shouldn't be illegal for me to do it. My beliefs hold that self-pleasuring is perfectly healthy, natural, and moral.
Case law applies past decisions to current cases... In the past many "common" values were different than they are now.
Result: When I jerk off I'm breaking the lawe because my religious freedoms are being taken away by prevalent past beliefs.
You tell me about intents; I tell you about legal consequences we would not otherwise be subject to if it weren't for conservative religious beliefs.
It is always the minority that faces religious persecution. This country was founded with the principal intent to allow religious freedoms even among the minority faiths. When this principal is violated, I cry "Violation of Church & State Separation", not because it should be a law, but because it was a founding principal that the US laws are supposed to uphold.
Slashdot Mirror
Instead of re-inventing the wheel
Instead of re-inventing the wheel why not just use Fidonet?
Hell, I was using Fidonet since before the Internet was available to the masses.
Tell you what, why don't we let those that have ideas, and itches to scratch rally supporters for their own implementations based on their own merits, and let the best protocol win?
Sometimes you have to break an egg to make an omelet; Sometimes you have to re-invent a wheel or axle to innovate.
By definition, that doesn't work. A certificate is the product of a certification authority, and it certifies you are who you say you are. You're talking about web of trust. Very different model, and even less trustworthy than a CA.
::Sigh:: Some CA's are more "trustworthy" than others. The current CA system is broken... let me repeat that: OUR CA SYSTEM IS BROKEN, since, for example, China's CINNIC CA can create a valid cert for Google.com without Google's permission.
At least a web of trust has a chain of signatures that I can validate by personally contacting each person in the chain: "Hey, Alice, my good friend, you signed Bob's cert, what's his number I need to find out about Carl since Bob signed Carlo's cert, and Carlos signed Daisy's" I can even decide how long of a chain of trust I allow between me and someone else. I can also decide who can and can't sign my key.
Remember that time that a whole crapload of Internet data was "accidentally" routed through China? If CINNIC had created fraudulent certs, and inserted themselves into the connections MITM style, your web browser would display the "IT'S SECURE" bar and all that SSL encryption would be useless.
Not to mention, any country can coerce and gag-order a CA that resides in said country for the purpose of creating fake certs. If the US coerced Thawte to make a fake Google.com cert, they can just insert themselves right into your "secure" connection, and you wouldn't even be able to detect the tap, and Google wouldn't even know either.
If you have Firefox: Preferences > Advanced > Encryption > View Certificates. Remove the root CAs that you don't trust. Yes, CINNIC is in there by default.
It's possible to create a better CA system that is tiered as our current system, and prevents the CAs from generating certs that were not requested. It's very simple using public-key crypto. I am developing such a system for use in my game's mod community. "It arn't that hard"
TL;DR: The Current SSL & CA system is just a security theater...
This is not the same thing at all. By blocking Amazon, they are not just interfering with the business of Amazon but third party resellers who sell through amazon.
Amazon is not preventing Wikileaks from using another service.
Now let's consider for a moment what you just wrote... no, actually, let's not, lets just rewrite it and swap the parties involved.
This is not the same thing at all. By blocking Wikileaks, they are not just interfering with the business of Wikileaks but third party leakers who leak through Wikileaks.
Anonymous is not preventing Amazon from using a better service.
So, you see... it is the same thing. Amazon is protesting the actions of Wikileaks on behalf of the US Gov. Anonymous is protesting the actions of Amazon on the behalf of Wikileaks supporters.
Here's a nice thought: Amazon's servers are just waiting to send me data, if I don't want that data I block it via ad-blockers. My client is just waiting to send Amazon data, If Amazon doesn't want my packets, they can block them via filters.
Don't like it? GTFO the web. There's no reason Amazon can't distribute Internet enabled "apps" you must use to access their content, and block all other unapproved data. I risk being DDoSed and having crazy over-the-cap overages by being connected to the Internet, and spreading my IP address all over the web... so does Amazon. They may be at higher risk, but my overages would cost me a higher percent of my time and money.
Denying Amazon servers the right to serve up their own content is not the same as Amazon not hosting Wikileaks. They aren't even in the same ballpark. The right to refuse to do business with someone, for whatever reason is no where near the same as denying OTHERS the right to do business with someone.
Please explain how Amazon is not also "denying OTHERS the right to do business with someone". Eg: Amazon is also denying WIKILEAKS the right to distribute information with users. What is Wikileaks business again? Right. Information distribution.
You can argue that Wikileaks can just take their hosting plan elsewhere, and use a different domain name. I can then argue that Amazon.com can also just use a different domain name / hosting plan as well...
What's good for the goose, is good for the gander. Don't want my packets? Set up a better filter or GTFO the Internet.
We need to coin a new term that fits. How about "wreaking," a portmanteau of "web" and "freaking," giving it technological evolutionary significance, and it has the benefit of also being a real word with similar connotations.
I prefer "Using", considering that they are simply using the intended IP (Internet Protocol) en masse.
Much like those that overload a telecom by organizing a coordinated mass phone call campaign would be called, "callers"; Those that utilize the Internet to perform their goals should be called "users".
Folks that use their own means to protest should be called "protesters". Much like how sit-ins did no physical harm, neither do too many IP packets.
Those that cause trouble by using technology should be called "trouble makers", optionally prefixed with the adjective "pesky".
The group Anonymous, would simply be "pesky, trouble making, Internet using protesters", which is far more descriptive and has the benefit of also explaining exactly what they are.
On another note: "Hacker" is a silly term that I propose be replaced by "exceptionally skilled programmer".
Furthermore, smoking crystal meth is a choice, at least the first time you do it, yet most people are perfectly OK with judging that behavior and saying it it morally wrong,
Citation needed. Recreational drug use has been around since long before current social structure and laws came into being.
By your logic, would not alcohol also be judged by "most people" as morally wrong? What about marijuana? Apparently you are ignorant of the 60's & 70's, and/or have a very skewed view of what exactly a moral is.
Recreational drug use is recreational. We have warlords in Mexico running amok because our idiotic government won't legalize and tax the recreational drugs that give them power.
Remember the prohibition of alcohol and the gangsters that the sell of illegal alcohol funded? Clearly, people would rather purchase their recreational drugs from a safe, clean, regulated environment such as a grocery store, liquor store or pharmacy rather than purchasing their drug from a gangster... Evidence: Gangsters are not selling illegal alcohol to the public at large now that it is legal. Tobacco Cigarettes are nearly addictive as heroin, yet they are legal and not "morally" wrong to most people; The common belief is, "If you want to smoke, fine, just don't do it around those that do not smoke."
I would argue that most people judge moderate recreational drug use (such as drinking wine, liquor, beer) as moral. Many people I know only judge the use of other recreational drugs (such as marijuana, cocaine, crystal meth) as "wrong" because they are illegal. Many of these same people have told me that if using said drugs were not against the law then it would not be "wrong" to use these drugs in moderation. Therefore, I posit that this it is not so much a moral issue, but one of legality.
Abuse of any drug is wrong simply because abuse inherently implies wrongdoing. Please do not confuse Abuse with Use.
Or am I mistaken here?
Nope. Not mistaken. Also: Stem cells can be created from your own skin. Stem cells have nothing to do with Abortion, move along.
[This is] Google's response to the Facebook 'Like' button that is used to track your every movement throughout the web.
Why not also point out that Google's '+1' will simply complement their Google Ads that are used to track your every movement throughout the web?
Hint: More websites have Google ads on them than Facebook 'Like' buttons.
Apparently you've never heard of copyright nor royalties.
The cost is not in distributing the content, it's in displaying it.
That makes no sense. You see, it's $5.00 more per month for another set top box. No matter how many channels I have subscribed to.
So, for just $10.00 more per month (1/8th my monthly bill) I can be "displaying" 200% of the content I'm currently displaying, yet my bill will only increase by 12.5%
Obviously: the largest charges on my bill are for "distribution", not "display", otherwise my bill would double with each additional set-top-box... Yet, it doesn't... it's only $5.00 more per additional display.
The 'to the cloud' commercials annoy me.
Wrong cloud.
Look, those misleading commercials piss me off too, but I've found a mitigation technique.
Every time you hear: "To The Cloud!" Just imagine the camera zooms out to reveal a city wide flash of brightness, followed by a boiling mushroom shaped cloud, and a few seconds later, the sonic shock wave.
The NYT wouldn't ever say, "Look if you go after our reporter we'll release even more information!" They would take a stand or not take a stand. So Wikileaks really throws any media protection they may have had out the window. They've moved into a retaliatory mode. I'm not sure this doesn't make their actions combative and therefore a legitimate threat.
The NYT has much more resources and people than Wikileaks does.
Put yourself in their shoes:
I have all this juicy information that I think the public should know about. I want to comb through, redact, and release the info (with the help of large news orgs like NYT), but I'm scared that I may get disappeared before I've had the chance. I've distributed an encrypted copy of the info for which the key will be released if I'm dead to make sure the info can't be suppressed, and to reduce the benefit of killing me in the first place.
I'd go a step further...cable boxes and satellite boxes are pretty advanced....so I should only pay for the time that I'm watching the channels too.
Weeelll, you see, the thing is: It doesn't actually cost us anything let you access 10 of our channels vs 500 channels.
This is because Satellite TV transmits all channels all the time to just about everywhere around you. So, it really doesn't cost us anything more if you watch TV constantly instead of only 10 minutes a day, and satellite distribution to 1 million customers doesn't cost us any more than distribution to one customer.
We've successfully tricked most people into thinking that a huge price increase for twice the number of channels is reasonable when, in fact, all we do is change the DRM keys in your set-top box so that you can decode the extra channels that we are sending to you (and everyone else in your city) anyhow.
Oh, and extra monthly fee for having a 2nd set top box? Ha ha ha, we make you pay for the set-top box, then charge you extra per month for something that costs us nothing to transmit! People gladly hand us more money Hand over Fist, it's amazing how dumb they are!
With Cable it's a bit different, we pay to maintain the lines, but other than that, it's the same.
TV is a purely distribution only system, there is no "on demand". The Internet is a totally different beast (which we use to provide some on-demand services). With the Internet, we try to send you only the data you request. Actually, we don't do that, we send any data destined for your IP, whether you wanted it or not, so beware of DDoS attacks because your pay-as-you-go bill will be humorously expensive.
My mistake, when I say "Tablet PC", I always have in mind my own "Tablet PC", which is a "laptop" with a swivel touch-screen that folds flat to transform into a "tablet"... Best of both worlds (a bit thick for a tablet, but has a full keyboard when I need it).
You can install android on your netbook, laptop, tablet, destkop, etc.
You can even purchase Android tablets & netbooks right now.
Sure, Google might not release a chrome OS tablet right now, but that doesn't mean that they won't, or won't let other companies do it. PS. I won't buy a notebook that can't transform into a tablet or vise versa; Other devices just seems like they're missing features for no good reason.
I keep trying to read the story at http://www.mastercard.com/ but nothings happening.
In Firefox, just hold ctrl while repeatedly clicking the link. It will eventually load for you.
A few flash grenades is all you need. Ever seen a flash grenade through night vision goggles? They're "brighter" than without the goggles (obscures more visible area).
when a company finds a way to make the world a little more foolproof, the world will make a better fool....
Yes, they will just hold down shift while typing.
"According to Google, this will improve the quality of the comments, because people will not be able to write all in capital letters.
If Google's goal was to limit the number of annoying all-caps posts they should not be relying on the removal of a caps lock key on a device that very few of their users will actually be using... (In other words: they lied to you; Google removed the caps lock key because their hardware designer is a member of the Jobsian Minimalist Cult.)
Web Coder Rule #1: Validate All Input Server Side.
Removing the caps is akin to validating the input on the Client Side with JavaScript, and not validating it at all Server Side. This is a huge mistake.
IMO, since Google employs at least one high-school level coder, they should get said coder to validate user post content on the server side: Replace long strings of all-caps words with lower case equivalents.
Hints: In Perl, the "lc" builtin function. In C++, it's the "tolower" function. In Java or JavaScript use "String.toLowerCase", in PHP use "strtolower", in Python use... wait, no, in Python you're screwed, try to write your own locale independent to lowercase function (good luck with that. damn Python, WTF!).
Bonus: provide a button next to posts that were converted to lowercase so that I can see the original post's text if I so desire (False positives are always a possibility; Post could be laden with acronyms).
Or, hmm, I dunno, programmers?
Why the continuing bother with Caps Lock, SysRq, Scroll Lock, and Break? Does anyone use them? at least, any number of people above statistical noise?
Yes, I do use them all.
Ctrl+Break = break out of a console program or script (interrupt signal).
Pause = Stop the initial BIOS startup text from disappearing from view before I've had a chance to read it.
Caps Lock = Type a $CONSTANT_VARIABLE_NAME without having to hold down shift.
PrintScreen = On Windows, or KDE4: copies a screenshot to the clipboard; on Gnome take a screenshot and opens the "Save Screenshot" dialog.
SysReq = Recover from freezes, reboot without trashing the filesystem, etc Instead of rebooting on Linux, next time try entering the following sequence of keys with Alt+SysReq held down: R E I S U B (allow a few seconds between each letter). American Simplified (Dvorak) users: P . C O G X. see link for key meanings
Scroll Lock = Change computers that my Keyboard/Video/Mouse Switch is displaying/controlling (when Pressed 3 times in succession) or toggle between scrolling the entire page or moving the cursor (I hear Excel supports the latter behavior as well).
Just because you are not a "power user" or a programmer doesn't mean that those who are make up a percentage below "statistical noise" ratio. Also: Just because you don't use these keys, doesn't mean the person who is diagnosing or fixing your computer problem doesn't need the keys.
The Chrome notebook will be solely for web applications. My most recently crafted web application is a secure remote terminal (SSH client) using JavaScript and HTML5 (web sockets). I will not purchase the device if I am lacking any of the above keys or caps lock (I use caps lock for naming $CONSTANTS and typing acronyms like "SCOTUS").
Note: ChromeOS's web-apps aren't like plugins... I hope there is a ChromeOS plugin framework. My first ChromeOS plugin will be to emulate a caps lock switch via pressing shift twice in rapid succession, or both shifts at once (provided that Google sticks with their U KANT HAS CAPS policy...
On another note: Seriously Google? You folks are CODERS. You can DETECT all-caps posts and convert them to lowercase. Hell, some languages (like Perl or C++) have a simple "lc" or "tolower" function. You could even provide a little "aA" button next to such converted posts that allows you to view the original content... Removing the Caps key is fucking stupid. One of your hardware designers has too much time on their hands and should be fired (they obviously can't code to save their life).
Yes! Text will load even more imperceptibly quickly!
And so will my HTML5 games!
Sure, but that's far fetched from the ability that cookies and the likes of Google Analytics offer for marketers. It's stupid to say "this won't end it all" and think it's better to do nothing.
Only the uninformed think I'm stupid when I say these privacy features won't stop the tracking.
Please, educate yourself to the fact that 54 of the top 100 websites use Flash Cookies (in conjunction with HTTP Cookies). Also take note of the Evercookie and other such fingerprinting systems such as Panopticlick.
You don't have to add features to your web-browser in order to eliminate tracking. I use a VM and a commonly distributed VM image of an OS with a browser installed. Besides the IP address I look just like everyone else using the same VM image. My IP is transient, so I turn off my modem when I'm not using it.
It's foolish to call others stupid when you are ignorant of the topic at hand.
It's fully possible to do everything that you can do with native technology with web technologies". Which sounds pretty dubious,
Pretty easy, actually — just add some way to execute machine code via javascript or something. Granted, there are some issues with this strategy.
Chrome's V8 JS engine already compiles JavaScript into machine code to gain performance... Granted, there are some security issues with this strategy (note: Firefox, IE & Safari also run JS as machine code).
Provide some bindings for JS to take advantage of OpenGL (like WebGL), and sockets (like WebSockets), and yeah, you can do just about anything with JS compiled into machine code as you can with C compiled into machine code.
IMO, machine code should run in a hardware supported VM environment to help prevent exploits... Davlik is a software VM, perhaps this should have just been an Android tablet... I just can't wait to fully "jail break" a Chrome OS tablet and install Android on it (I already develop for Android... Google, STOP FRAGMENTING THE MARKET).
Think about it. Everyone wants easy access and control over their own info. What easier way to achieve this than a centralized home server?
Want all of your music & movies & data in the "cloud"? Why not just have your own stable cloud at home that can sync & stream your data to all of your fragmented year-long-lifespan (disposable) mobile devices?
If only someone made a cheap and reliable OS that could work as both a desktop and/or a server... Too bad MS has artificial remote connection limits in their OS, and Apple OS can't be used except on their pricey hardware.
If only the free and open source Linux OS I use for desktop computing could be also be used as server... ::sigh:: I guess my dreams of owning my own cloud and r-synching encrypted backups between family and friends will never be a reality.
In this new age of information, exact data duplication and instant worldwide distribution is easy, cheap and commonplace.
Our old laws do not coincide with the capabilities of today.
Think of it this way: I am a programmer, I work on open-source software. I get paid to do so. I only get paid when I do work. I have also worked on closed-source applications, I also only got paid for the work I did on those products.
I don't get paid when I sit on my ass and let people copy the past work I have done. I place adverts on my documentation & distribution sites to recoup the costs of hosting the data -- I get paid when the work of serving the data takes place, and I must pay to have machines online that make my data available.
I don't get paid when duplicates are created using other people's hardware. I do get paid for my work when I assist other people in the use of software with their hardware.
A janitor does not get paid when they are not cleaning. A football player does not get paid if their contract expires and they no longer play football. A barber does not get paid when they are not cutting hair. A construction worker does not get paid when they are not building. A police officer does not get paid when they are not on duty.
Artists should, and do get paid when they work. When a painter paints a painting they can sell the original. When an author pens a book or script, they can sell it to a publisher (many times they are paid in advance). When a musician plays for an audience or recording studio they are doing work, they get paid.
When a publisher is mass producing a book of paintings, a novel, or an album of songs the artist is not working, they get paid a small fraction of what the publisher makes, if anything at all. An artist may help production via book-signings, appearing at sales events or displaying their art in exhibitions; This is work for which they should and do get paid.
In the age of information "publishing" is so cheap, easy, and commonplace that anyone can do it, and basic economic principals are observed: No matter the demand, as supply approaches infinity cost tends toward zero.
Economics are no different today than before the information age. The only thing that has changed is that we all have our own affordable data duplication machines. This has brought the cost of copies down to nearly nil.
How many times were these words copied between routers before you saw them? All Internet traffic, even iTunes data, is copied many times before it reaches the destination. The old copy laws simply can not be upheld -- Are all the router operators between the Amazon MP3 server and my PC subject to their EULA or even copyright law?
If cheap & reliable robotic janitors become commonplace, janitors have less work to do, and the janitorial industry changes appropriately. Automobile assembly line workers have already been through this transition.
Bottom line: Eventually artists & authors will only get paid when they do work, just like anyone else. They will not be able to capitalize on money generated by distribution of copies of their prior work.. Copies are infinitely available, and therefore worth nil.
Since cheap & reliable data copiers have become commonplace, the copy-business must be reformed. No matter how much the copy industry resists the change, they can't fight economics and technology forever. The media industry must, and will change to accommodate the new age; Payment models will be reformed.
We live at the cusp of the new age, the stresses we feel are expected.
Yep.
Also:
a device designed and marketed as useful primarily for stimulation of the human genital organs; and
(C) taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, and scientific value.
My girlfriend is scientifically studying the short term effects of dildonic-vaginal stimulation; I provide the tool she needs for her control group.
The "original intent" was to promote religious freedom. If your religion says it's against God's law (and therefore offensive) to masturbate then don't do it; It shouldn't be illegal for me to do it. My beliefs hold that self-pleasuring is perfectly healthy, natural, and moral.
Case law applies past decisions to current cases... In the past many "common" values were different than they are now.
Result: When I jerk off I'm breaking the lawe because my religious freedoms are being taken away by prevalent past beliefs.
You tell me about intents; I tell you about legal consequences we would not otherwise be subject to if it weren't for conservative religious beliefs.
It is always the minority that faces religious persecution. This country was founded with the principal intent to allow religious freedoms even among the minority faiths. When this principal is violated, I cry "Violation of Church & State Separation", not because it should be a law, but because it was a founding principal that the US laws are supposed to uphold.