Huh, I don't remember purchasing software to listen to music, or watch movies. I use the other sort. Maybe it's there in the price of my phone, though.
Everything can be protected by DRM. Nothing under discussion must be protected by DRM. And, oddly enough, I don't remember ever paying fees to Fraunhofer.
320 mp3s are fine though. There's just little reason to use the format if you're not compressing, except back in the day when there were players that played nothing else.
An Audiophiles is just and idiot with money - or, at least, one who used to have money. Those $5000 speaker cables are dance-able, though, even if your ears aren't good enough to tell the difference.
This is just "bro-tastic" behavior. The people I choose to associate with don't talk about this sort of BS either, not because it's "reprehensible", but because it's childish, one step above fart jokes. We have more interesting things to discuss.
On the one hand, this is the sort of BS that's inevitable if you try to staff a tech company with jocks instead of geeks. Never cross the streams! Jocks and frat boys go into sales, obviously. This "brogramming" trend is clearly getting out of hand.
OTOH, discussing sexual exploits isn't particularly different from discussing the big game last night. I don't care to hear about either sort of athletic behavior, but, hey, headphones, problem solved. Or are we sticking to Victorian or 50s-America notions?
On the gripping hand - drugs at work? Really? Red flag if I ever saw one. I'm not sure how you'd even filter for that as a candidate, unless the office smelled obviously of MJ or something. Is this something new at frat houses too?
Sure, they did their best to stop Hitler's socialist party, left-wing as they come, from taking power. Sure, they failed, but they fought the good fight.
But keep pretending that the National Socialist party wasn't what it was if it helps you sleep better. Pretty much post-Napoleon (no idea where to put him), every totalitarian state was left-wing, and every sufficiently left-wing state was totalitarian. That's just how this works.
More central government power == more central government power. It's what the left does. It's all they do.
No, sorry, she aspires to be PM. She's a job candidate, indirect though the selection process is. Insisting on some personal definition of "candidate" here won't help the discussion any.
But more importantly, why would I want anything that would actually encourage me to watch MORE television and as a result, eat MORE crap, and get lest exercise?
TV causes eating? That's a new one on me. (Or do you mean watching commercials? But who does that?) I watch TV while I exercise - most of the stuff on Netflix is pretty vapid, but still more interesting than staring at the wall.
"Netflix original programming: slightly more interesting than watching paint dry."
Ah, yes, those alt-right hipsters. Gotta watch out for those guys.
Better way of saying this might be "yeah, I watch a few hours of dumbass TV shows a week - I'm not proud of it, but there are far more embarrassing habits, after all."
That didn't figure into Lincoln's reasoning though. He has written clearly about that. Really, few people in power in the North at the time cared. All wars are over power and economics, never any sort of cause.
All hail Turing, you mean. But the government wasn't going to publish the stuff kept secret during the war under the name of some embarrassing gay guy, even if it was his work, so Shannon gets the glory. Or so I've heard.
It's a fair point, not to be merely handwaved away. Lincoln felt that multiple smaller nations would not endure. He was probably right, given the events of WWII and the cold war.
I'm not sure you understand the design of Freenet. If I upload a 2-minute video of hot Putin on Trump monkey love, that video won't be stored as a whole on anyone's machine (unless they've actually downloaded it as a client of the network). It will be broken into chucks, encrypted, and the chunks distributed across the network identified by their hashes. The keys are off in some metadata chunk somewhere else on the network. A Freenet node stores a bunch of fragments of encrypted files without the keys to any of them.
An attacker with the resources of a government could certainly figure out that some server had one of these chucks right now (they gradually move around, or just get deleted), but there's no legal precedent that that means anything. No one has ever been arrested just for running a Freenet node (unlike TOR exit nodes - more like normal TOR nodes). If the network were only used for illegal activity, there might be a legal angle there, but if we're talking about a replacement for the internet or the web as a whole, that doesn't work.
OTOH, someone downloading the Putin/Trump manlove video could be tracked given enough resources, and obviously the video would exist as a complete entity on the downloader's machine. That's very clear legal ground, easy to understand and prosecute.
The way Freenet supposedly works is that no one can really prove what's on a given node, or decrypt it "locally". How true that is is a matter for the security researchers, but it's not a foolish approach as you imply. It's just chunks of encrypted distributed data with the keys elsewhere.
Freenet still exists, in some token way, but more importantly it works as a protocol. There might be some evolution of the concept that's better, no doubt. It's had a lot of security analysis over the years, and it's not terrible. But I'm not sure anything like it will ever have mass appeal.
Pros: - Uploading is very anonymous, if you finish your upload before telling the world what it is. Great for something like wikileaks.
- No way to force the "take down" of any content.
Cons: - Downloading is less anonymous: much like TOR, it's fine vs corporations, but fundamentally vulnerable to nation-states (more vulnerable than TOR, I guess).
- No concept of servers dedicated to particular content, so there's no way to ensure any given content stays up, and no way to ensure your machine won't have parts of something disgusting and vile.
- Fundamentally slow compared to the open web, or even TOR.
Of course, all these cons may be endemic to anything truly decentralized and encrypted.
And how can you check that it's not doing that since it's not open? No harm in using closed source stuff if that's not ment to not harm you? How about the Intel ME / AMT bug? This is not about piracy, it's about security.
It's about security? Really? You going with that? The alternative is Flash! For fuck's sake, man, Flash. That's what you're advocating for in the name of security? Flash?
Problem is, the MAFIAA is not going to give up DRM, period. Eighter we have a standard to plug it into our browsers, or they stick to crap like flash or silverlight.
This. Idealism over practicality is something one is supposed to grow out of. There will be DRM on the intarwebs, period. No amount of nerdrage will stop it.
The more DRM can be standardized, the more likely it is that I'll be able to watch Netflix on a quirky Linux distro, or even BSD.
You seem to have "Libertarian" confused with "anarchist". Libertarians see "keeping the peace" as part of the legitimate role of government, along with "fraud protection" which this also almost certainly runs afoul of.
But then, very few self-identify as Libertarian any more, except maybe for a few Randroids who can't let the label go. "Classic liberal" better captures the spirit that the first job of the government is to ensure individual liberty.
LAN is not WAN. WAN isn't perfect, especially when latency matters. Carriers identify VOIP streams and give them special handling, for good reason. You seem to be describing how a large corporation with a large IT staff might interact with their ISP, and that's fine, but consumers won't know any of this. Consumer ISPs should certainly have the right to shape their traffic for better customer experience.
All of this is just the wrong way to fix the problem of cable company price gouging.
Learning styles don't exist. They only appear in people who are poorly educated and not very bright/curious. The better educated you are, the more you get used to taking things from any of the modalities and turn them into something that's useful.
So "learning styles don't exist, they only exist in the majority of people"? Fascinating stuff.
Pardon me if I choose to believe thousands of peer-reviewed articles in journals over your intuitions. You remind me of the/. armchair experts who are sure dark matter and dark energy are nonsense.
There's certainly plenty of work to show that different teaching styles or more or less effective for specific students. The entire field of communication studies is about measuring shit like that (psychology not so much). There are multiple journals devoted just to the study of communication within education.
I agree that "learning style" is a marketing buzzword, sure, but there are different communication styles in an educational context, different teachers are going to be better at some than others, and different students will be better served by some than others.
Slashdot Mirror
He has the best diet.
Nobody has a better diet than him.
He gets two scoops of ice cream - everyone else only gets one! (Yes, CNN actually ran this story - hard hitting investigative reporting.)
Huh, I don't remember purchasing software to listen to music, or watch movies. I use the other sort. Maybe it's there in the price of my phone, though.
Everything can be protected by DRM. Nothing under discussion must be protected by DRM. And, oddly enough, I don't remember ever paying fees to Fraunhofer.
320 mp3s are fine though. There's just little reason to use the format if you're not compressing, except back in the day when there were players that played nothing else.
Audiophiles don't buy monster cables. ...
IDIOTs buy over-priced Monster Cables.
An Audiophiles is just and idiot with money - or, at least, one who used to have money. Those $5000 speaker cables are dance-able, though, even if your ears aren't good enough to tell the difference.
This is just "bro-tastic" behavior. The people I choose to associate with don't talk about this sort of BS either, not because it's "reprehensible", but because it's childish, one step above fart jokes. We have more interesting things to discuss.
On the one hand, this is the sort of BS that's inevitable if you try to staff a tech company with jocks instead of geeks. Never cross the streams! Jocks and frat boys go into sales, obviously. This "brogramming" trend is clearly getting out of hand.
OTOH, discussing sexual exploits isn't particularly different from discussing the big game last night. I don't care to hear about either sort of athletic behavior, but, hey, headphones, problem solved. Or are we sticking to Victorian or 50s-America notions?
On the gripping hand - drugs at work? Really? Red flag if I ever saw one. I'm not sure how you'd even filter for that as a candidate, unless the office smelled obviously of MJ or something. Is this something new at frat houses too?
Sure, they did their best to stop Hitler's socialist party, left-wing as they come, from taking power. Sure, they failed, but they fought the good fight.
But keep pretending that the National Socialist party wasn't what it was if it helps you sleep better. Pretty much post-Napoleon (no idea where to put him), every totalitarian state was left-wing, and every sufficiently left-wing state was totalitarian. That's just how this works.
More central government power == more central government power. It's what the left does. It's all they do.
No, sorry, she aspires to be PM. She's a job candidate, indirect though the selection process is. Insisting on some personal definition of "candidate" here won't help the discussion any.
But more importantly, why would I want anything that would actually encourage me to watch MORE television and as a result, eat MORE crap, and get lest exercise?
TV causes eating? That's a new one on me. (Or do you mean watching commercials? But who does that?) I watch TV while I exercise - most of the stuff on Netflix is pretty vapid, but still more interesting than staring at the wall.
"Netflix original programming: slightly more interesting than watching paint dry."
Ah, yes, those alt-right hipsters. Gotta watch out for those guys.
Better way of saying this might be "yeah, I watch a few hours of dumbass TV shows a week - I'm not proud of it, but there are far more embarrassing habits, after all."
You sound like an addict rationalizing his addiction. Just sayin'
That didn't figure into Lincoln's reasoning though. He has written clearly about that. Really, few people in power in the North at the time cared. All wars are over power and economics, never any sort of cause.
Well, if you trust nothing,. there's really no point in discussing anything, is there? So why are you here?
All hail Turing, you mean. But the government wasn't going to publish the stuff kept secret during the war under the name of some embarrassing gay guy, even if it was his work, so Shannon gets the glory. Or so I've heard.
It's a fair point, not to be merely handwaved away. Lincoln felt that multiple smaller nations would not endure. He was probably right, given the events of WWII and the cold war.
I'm not sure you understand the design of Freenet. If I upload a 2-minute video of hot Putin on Trump monkey love, that video won't be stored as a whole on anyone's machine (unless they've actually downloaded it as a client of the network). It will be broken into chucks, encrypted, and the chunks distributed across the network identified by their hashes. The keys are off in some metadata chunk somewhere else on the network. A Freenet node stores a bunch of fragments of encrypted files without the keys to any of them.
An attacker with the resources of a government could certainly figure out that some server had one of these chucks right now (they gradually move around, or just get deleted), but there's no legal precedent that that means anything. No one has ever been arrested just for running a Freenet node (unlike TOR exit nodes - more like normal TOR nodes). If the network were only used for illegal activity, there might be a legal angle there, but if we're talking about a replacement for the internet or the web as a whole, that doesn't work.
OTOH, someone downloading the Putin/Trump manlove video could be tracked given enough resources, and obviously the video would exist as a complete entity on the downloader's machine. That's very clear legal ground, easy to understand and prosecute.
The way Freenet supposedly works is that no one can really prove what's on a given node, or decrypt it "locally". How true that is is a matter for the security researchers, but it's not a foolish approach as you imply. It's just chunks of encrypted distributed data with the keys elsewhere.
All the locked down mainstream devices havd Linux or BSD installed already - you seem to have your head stuck up your 90s.
I was thinking freenet, does that exist still?
Freenet still exists, in some token way, but more importantly it works as a protocol. There might be some evolution of the concept that's better, no doubt. It's had a lot of security analysis over the years, and it's not terrible. But I'm not sure anything like it will ever have mass appeal.
Pros:
- Uploading is very anonymous, if you finish your upload before telling the world what it is. Great for something like wikileaks.
- No way to force the "take down" of any content.
Cons:
- Downloading is less anonymous: much like TOR, it's fine vs corporations, but fundamentally vulnerable to nation-states (more vulnerable than TOR, I guess).
- No concept of servers dedicated to particular content, so there's no way to ensure any given content stays up, and no way to ensure your machine won't have parts of something disgusting and vile.
- Fundamentally slow compared to the open web, or even TOR.
Of course, all these cons may be endemic to anything truly decentralized and encrypted.
And how can you check that it's not doing that since it's not open? No harm in using closed source stuff if that's not ment to not harm you? How about the Intel ME / AMT bug? This is not about piracy, it's about security.
It's about security? Really? You going with that? The alternative is Flash! For fuck's sake, man, Flash. That's what you're advocating for in the name of security? Flash?
Problem is, the MAFIAA is not going to give up DRM, period. Eighter we have a standard to plug it into our browsers, or they stick to crap like flash or silverlight.
This. Idealism over practicality is something one is supposed to grow out of. There will be DRM on the intarwebs, period. No amount of nerdrage will stop it.
The more DRM can be standardized, the more likely it is that I'll be able to watch Netflix on a quirky Linux distro, or even BSD.
You seem to have "Libertarian" confused with "anarchist". Libertarians see "keeping the peace" as part of the legitimate role of government, along with "fraud protection" which this also almost certainly runs afoul of.
But then, very few self-identify as Libertarian any more, except maybe for a few Randroids who can't let the label go. "Classic liberal" better captures the spirit that the first job of the government is to ensure individual liberty.
LAN is not WAN. WAN isn't perfect, especially when latency matters. Carriers identify VOIP streams and give them special handling, for good reason. You seem to be describing how a large corporation with a large IT staff might interact with their ISP, and that's fine, but consumers won't know any of this. Consumer ISPs should certainly have the right to shape their traffic for better customer experience.
All of this is just the wrong way to fix the problem of cable company price gouging.
Learning styles don't exist. They only appear in people who are poorly educated and not very bright/curious. The better educated you are, the more you get used to taking things from any of the modalities and turn them into something that's useful.
So "learning styles don't exist, they only exist in the majority of people"? Fascinating stuff.
Pardon me if I choose to believe thousands of peer-reviewed articles in journals over your intuitions. You remind me of the /. armchair experts who are sure dark matter and dark energy are nonsense.
There's certainly plenty of work to show that different teaching styles or more or less effective for specific students. The entire field of communication studies is about measuring shit like that (psychology not so much). There are multiple journals devoted just to the study of communication within education.
I agree that "learning style" is a marketing buzzword, sure, but there are different communication styles in an educational context, different teachers are going to be better at some than others, and different students will be better served by some than others.