I don't know much about drugs outside of "drugs are bad mmm'kay", but it was my understanding that meth is relatively cheap. If he was selling other drugs, I'm sure he had a bit of pocket change to afford meth to get sexual favors.
If you don't try, you will always fail. If you do try, you may fail.
I'm sure future intelligent races will have historians, and they'd be thrilled to find something that is near impervious to corrosion and containing information.
A single fiber optic can carry more data than all the wifi in a city, and that's not including every strand of fiber that goes to each house. How can wifi compete?
Everyone streaming Netflix will overwhelm any current or currently planned wifi tech for the next decade.
You don't need to vet every line of code, you just don't need idiot programmers. Most security issues you see are because of a lazy or uneducated programmer that skipped freshman programming. Programmers need to become security conscience and understand how their code fits into entire systems, or in this case, some @#$%ing common sense.
I've always tended to get over whatever other people had really fast. Same symptoms, just less severe and not nearly as long. Anyway, I recently decided to start getting flu shots because I plan to have kids some day, so I wanted to find out if I'd any issues now, than get surprised when I got mouths to feed.
Exactly. If you want to know if the data has been modified, digitally sign it, but don't rely on DRM to keep people from modifying the data, just check to see if it was modified.
It's pretty obvious the content owners (not makers, authors, or creators, by in large) will insist on DRM for all their content, when it benefits just about nobody except them. The DRM battle was nearly won, and now W3C is actively undermining this societal progress.
It's not about "your website", it's about your access to culture that is increasingly consolidated among a few large corporate players due to the chicanery of copyright law.
You make it sound as if I have a right to the content other people produce. I don't and never did. I don't consider it to be "culture" either.
DRM is about controlling the playback, locking out certain uses and users.
I'd say that this will just push even more traffic to the torrents, but the NSA will probably divulging the correlated info for torrents soon enough.
If the content producer hasn't given you permission to consume their content, then you have no right to seek it elsewhere. If I cannot watch a movie through legal channels then I don't watch the movie. Same thing with TV shows and music. I don't consider respecting other peoples' rights to be very onerous, and I don't think I'm missing out on much.
Copyright isn't a right in the sense of a fundamental right. The right to access culture is considered fundamental, which is at odds with copyright, but it is acknowledged that the right to access culture is temporarily removed in the hope that exclusive control of the culture(content) will help encourage the creation of more culture.
Kind of like a person has a right to religion, but that right can be taken away if your religion involves sacrificing virgins. It is for the good of the people. Same idea with copyright. Our fundamental right to access culture is taken away with the idea that it will cause more culture and we will eventually be able to access the culture.
When "they" start taking away our access to culture and still not providing us that culture, they ceased to hold up their end of the bargain, voiding their exception that allows them to take away our rights as people.
An example of this is when copyright holders purposefully hold back the release of culture(content) to different areas. So instead of airing a TV show around the world at the same time, when they are easily capable of doing so, they change the release dates. This causes an issue that people in one area cannot properly participate in socializing with other ares because their right to access culture has been denied.
This seems kind of weak, but extend that to something else. Say family members in North Korea want to talk(exchange culture) with friends and family in another country, but are denied to do so. It really is the same thing, just at a different level. In both cases access to culture is being denied by another party.
Talking, spreading ideas, learning, teaching, religion, news, art(music, movies, shows, etc) are all forms of culture and the spread of culture creates a strong society. Well, I guess some could argue the spread of religion;-)
Culture and society are heavily bound. Neither can exist without the other. A strong society has a strong culture.
But it doesn't benefit them, it only gives them a false sense of security. Kind of like a car rental trying to figure out a way to keep customers from ruining their cars. Someone that is determined will find a way. They only way to keep anyone from ruining your car is to not offer it in the first place. If content holders don't want users consuming their content, then don't offer it in the first place.
DRM is paradoxical. They want to sell their stuff, so they want people to consume, but at the same time, they consider their customers the enemy and don't want them to consume.
They're only standardizing the API for DRM, not the DRM itself. That is an OS specific black-boxed binary left up to the web page to ask you to download and install. It talks directly to system calls, so hope it isn't malware or has any security bugs.
DRM is like any hard drug, they only think they need it. It's best if we never let them have it, they'll eventually get weened off. Benefits of DRM are few and far between and most of those benefits are protected by other laws.
Even worse. They now have more people working at the parks just to guard them, but then those people are not even getting paid. Work for free or get fired!
Guess what people who have no food do when they have to choose between death or stealing? They roll over and die for the good of the colony.
If society does not support it's have-nots, crime will skyrocket. Part of the unwritten social contract is that society is a benefit, otherwise you are not bound to the laws and you make your own laws so you may survive.
It's a fairly simple idea, people will do ANYTHING to survive, and those that survive, will reproduce, and the more they reproduce, the worse it gets.
There are two ways to stop poverty: Genocide or helping them. I know I would rather help people, it's just a question of the best way, which I think is a proper education with easy access to food and healthcare.
One of those links talked about the job retraining was mostly used by disadvantaged youth which meant their peers were biased. In a normal class, you'd get a nicer mixture of different peer types, but in a class of highly biased "disadvantaged" peers, learning and acquired habits were actually harmful to future jobs.
Seems what we need to do is reduce the gap between "disadvantaged" and privileged by higher quality education. We need a better educational system, but not saying we need to spend more, we need to fix the problems. My opinion.
Slashdot Mirror
I don't know much about drugs outside of "drugs are bad mmm'kay", but it was my understanding that meth is relatively cheap. If he was selling other drugs, I'm sure he had a bit of pocket change to afford meth to get sexual favors.
IRC, where I learned to type.
Pre-VoiceComms era video-gaming, where I learned to type fast.
I suddenly feel old now.
They steal my shoes. Most grievous.
WTF is a 3D engine? I guess they just used higher resolution textures.
Agreeing: A bit of rice, some veggies, some beans. I can feed a family for $10 and be healthy. Why use Mc'Ds? Ohh, because they said so.
Welcome to Good Burger, home of the Good Burger, can I take ya owdar?
I get too distracted wondering if anyone else is not wearing any pants.
If you don't try, you will always fail. If you do try, you may fail.
I'm sure future intelligent races will have historians, and they'd be thrilled to find something that is near impervious to corrosion and containing information.
When lots of book stores decide to all pull similar books, that's not a freemarket, but collusion to censor.
I wonder what the continents will look like in 1bil years. Entire mountain ranges will probably be eroded or subducted back into the mantle.
A single fiber optic can carry more data than all the wifi in a city, and that's not including every strand of fiber that goes to each house. How can wifi compete?
Everyone streaming Netflix will overwhelm any current or currently planned wifi tech for the next decade.
You don't need to vet every line of code, you just don't need idiot programmers. Most security issues you see are because of a lazy or uneducated programmer that skipped freshman programming. Programmers need to become security conscience and understand how their code fits into entire systems, or in this case, some @#$%ing common sense.
I've always tended to get over whatever other people had really fast. Same symptoms, just less severe and not nearly as long. Anyway, I recently decided to start getting flu shots because I plan to have kids some day, so I wanted to find out if I'd any issues now, than get surprised when I got mouths to feed.
Exactly. If you want to know if the data has been modified, digitally sign it, but don't rely on DRM to keep people from modifying the data, just check to see if it was modified.
The machine follows exactly what it is told, the human sometimes does and sometimes doesn't.
Because people are going to download 20 different viewing apps for each web service they want to watch videos on?
It's pretty obvious the content owners (not makers, authors, or creators, by in large) will insist on DRM for all their content, when it benefits just about nobody except them. The DRM battle was nearly won, and now W3C is actively undermining this societal progress.
It's not about "your website", it's about your access to culture that is increasingly consolidated among a few large corporate players due to the chicanery of copyright law.
You make it sound as if I have a right to the content other people produce. I don't and never did. I don't consider it to be "culture" either.
DRM is about controlling the playback, locking out certain uses and users.
I'd say that this will just push even more traffic to the torrents, but the NSA will probably divulging the correlated info for torrents soon enough.
If the content producer hasn't given you permission to consume their content, then you have no right to seek it elsewhere. If I cannot watch a movie through legal channels then I don't watch the movie. Same thing with TV shows and music. I don't consider respecting other peoples' rights to be very onerous, and I don't think I'm missing out on much.
Copyright isn't a right in the sense of a fundamental right. The right to access culture is considered fundamental, which is at odds with copyright, but it is acknowledged that the right to access culture is temporarily removed in the hope that exclusive control of the culture(content) will help encourage the creation of more culture.
;-)
Kind of like a person has a right to religion, but that right can be taken away if your religion involves sacrificing virgins. It is for the good of the people. Same idea with copyright. Our fundamental right to access culture is taken away with the idea that it will cause more culture and we will eventually be able to access the culture.
When "they" start taking away our access to culture and still not providing us that culture, they ceased to hold up their end of the bargain, voiding their exception that allows them to take away our rights as people.
An example of this is when copyright holders purposefully hold back the release of culture(content) to different areas. So instead of airing a TV show around the world at the same time, when they are easily capable of doing so, they change the release dates. This causes an issue that people in one area cannot properly participate in socializing with other ares because their right to access culture has been denied.
This seems kind of weak, but extend that to something else. Say family members in North Korea want to talk(exchange culture) with friends and family in another country, but are denied to do so. It really is the same thing, just at a different level. In both cases access to culture is being denied by another party.
Talking, spreading ideas, learning, teaching, religion, news, art(music, movies, shows, etc) are all forms of culture and the spread of culture creates a strong society. Well, I guess some could argue the spread of religion
Culture and society are heavily bound. Neither can exist without the other. A strong society has a strong culture.
But it doesn't benefit them, it only gives them a false sense of security. Kind of like a car rental trying to figure out a way to keep customers from ruining their cars. Someone that is determined will find a way. They only way to keep anyone from ruining your car is to not offer it in the first place. If content holders don't want users consuming their content, then don't offer it in the first place.
DRM is paradoxical. They want to sell their stuff, so they want people to consume, but at the same time, they consider their customers the enemy and don't want them to consume.
I hope your neural network code isn't branchy because GPUs are horrible with branches.
Flash, for example, can do what they want already. From the average user perspective, what's the difference?
IE 11+ doesn't allow plugins. No flash, no 3rd-party DRM. So your average user on an HTML5 web-page won't be able to watch DRM'd videos.
They're only standardizing the API for DRM, not the DRM itself. That is an OS specific black-boxed binary left up to the web page to ask you to download and install. It talks directly to system calls, so hope it isn't malware or has any security bugs.
DRM is like any hard drug, they only think they need it. It's best if we never let them have it, they'll eventually get weened off. Benefits of DRM are few and far between and most of those benefits are protected by other laws.
Even worse. They now have more people working at the parks just to guard them, but then those people are not even getting paid. Work for free or get fired!
Guess what people who have no food do when they have to choose between death or stealing? They roll over and die for the good of the colony.
If society does not support it's have-nots, crime will skyrocket. Part of the unwritten social contract is that society is a benefit, otherwise you are not bound to the laws and you make your own laws so you may survive.
It's a fairly simple idea, people will do ANYTHING to survive, and those that survive, will reproduce, and the more they reproduce, the worse it gets.
There are two ways to stop poverty: Genocide or helping them. I know I would rather help people, it's just a question of the best way, which I think is a proper education with easy access to food and healthcare.
If you want the poor to stop reproducing, you first need to educate them properly, but then they won't be poor anymore. Win Win!
One of those links talked about the job retraining was mostly used by disadvantaged youth which meant their peers were biased. In a normal class, you'd get a nicer mixture of different peer types, but in a class of highly biased "disadvantaged" peers, learning and acquired habits were actually harmful to future jobs.
Seems what we need to do is reduce the gap between "disadvantaged" and privileged by higher quality education. We need a better educational system, but not saying we need to spend more, we need to fix the problems. My opinion.