I can see self driving being available on controlled roads like motorways. I do not see any possible way that it would be allowed on minor roads, or without the presence of an alert human driver. It's very easy to conceive scenarios that a car couldn't possibly cope with now, or any time in the forseeable future.
I couldn't give a fig really. This article was talking about running a shim to a proprietary silverlight plugin to obtain streaming video. Before that Linux had to use a proprietary Flash player. Using a browser which has some binary DRM is of little matter to me.
Netflix and other streaming content providers have to use DRM and simply won't support a platform if there is no way to economically achieve it.
Yes it's streamed and it's DRM'd. It's basically back catalogue films and TV shows. There is a lot of dross in there, although there are a things worth watching too. Most of it has little commercial value which is presumably why it's on Netflix - they probably pay out pennies to rights holders for streaming it.
I expect Netflix has no choice but to DRM the content as part of its contractual obligations and therefore any platform which does not provide a suitably strong DRM cannot be supported.
In any event Netflix is one of the stakeholders in the encrypted media extensions for HTML 5, so potentially at least one Linux browser, be it Chrome or Firefox could potentially be blessed to stream on Linux one day.
I think Windows 8 would be fabulously useful in a tablet / hybrid form factor. A full blown PC which can be used like a netbook, or like a tablet depending on the circumstances. Atom processors have reached a stage where you get similar battery life and form factor as an ARM based device and would be powerful enough for word processing, light gaming, development, video playback etc.
Problem here is that this is Windows RT we're talking about it which is ARM based and therefore incompatible with all Windows software except metro apps. It's not like there is a huge selection of metro apps either, especially compared to other tablet operating systems.
If cars were ever permitted to "self drive", it would most likely be for limited circumstances (e.g. on motorways). I doubt it would be permitted in a more dynamic urban environment where it's obvious how badly and inconsiderately it might behave. I expect vehicles would be required to revert to manual driving (perhaps with driver assist mode) in those circumstances and the driver would be required to be unimpaired at all times regardless of what the car is doing.
Well that's the point. People would have to decide if the data is worth protecting. If they share it with Google they are essentially sharing it with any government party which has reason to take an interest in it. Maybe that doesn't matter if you're storing weather readings. It might if you are storing personal data about or produced by people.
Its AES. Its a symmetric-key algorithm. The encryption key is the decryption key. Whats with all the jokes about decryption keys?
And the fact the keys are symmetric and held by Google renders the entire exercise entirely worthless. If Google have the key to encrypt/decrypt data then they can just hand it to the NSA or whomever at the same time they hand over the data.
The proper and correct thing to do is to provide a pluggable API in their client apps that allows an extension running client side to manage the key and encrypt / decrypt the data. And similarly for their cloud APIs for languages like Java.
Google would have absolutely no idea what the data contains and absolutely no way to retrieve it either. It might mean certain functionality in their apps / services is affected in some ways (e.g. encrypted folders are inaccessible via a browser) but I assume they could spell out the consequences and people motivated to encrypt data would recognize those limitations.
I am personally not a fan of "Do as I say, not as I do..." but when you are giving your market competitor access to your content like this, it doesn't seem a totally unreasonable request, does it?
Well it might do if it results in a shittier user experience. For example load the YouTube website in Chrome on Android and compare the experience to the native app. It's clearly inferior and I fail to see MS doing much better if they were expected to embed HTML in their app.
That said, it's a complex situation. Google clearly have the right to block an app which is not in compliance with their rules or deprives them of ad revenue. But at the same time there are obvious conflicts of interest here which could make Google behave like assholes simply because they're in direct competition with Microsoft in so many areas. The simplest solution is probably for Microsoft to pay Google a very large amount of money to write the app themselves (with the appropriate metro L&F) and for MS to ship it with their OS. In much the same way as Google do for iOS.
Google is making an absolute killing with its Nexus devices because they're very affordable and don't skimp on the core functionality. That's the model which might sell Surface tablets. Microsoft thought they could out-take-the-piss Apple with their prices and accessories and it simply didn't work.
Aside from that they really need to drive a stake through the heart of RT. I doubt it would be successful even on 7" devices. Just kill the fucking thing and work on some decent Windows 8 based devices based on Atom chips.
It's not unlikely. This sort of setup is quite common for major sporting events already, e.g the London olympics had cameras strung on cables and running over the stadiums as do many major sporting events. Commercial systems like Skycam are used already. The major difference in this particular camera is that a director has a 360 degree field of vision from the 10 views which are combined in software. I assume several of cameras could also be stuck on poles at advantageous points around the stadium.
I don't see it being any use to client side of the broadcast unless the channel streams the content in some other way and provides software to process the image into something meaningful.
The solution would be for the phone to periodically generate a random MAC for the purposes of scanning hotspots. If a user explicitly chooses to connect to a wifi hotspot the genuine MAC is presented and the connection proceeds with that. The behaviour could be turned on by default without affecting the user experience in any way. The random MAC could change every hour or so making the information transient and relatively useless to anybody who is snooping on it.
10 camera shots requires 10x the bandwidth to broadcast. But in reality they'd probably just take a hatchet to the bitrate or the horizontal resolution so the quality would be awful regardless of the camera you chose. So allowing viewers to choose the shot would be a stupid and futile gimmick.
It's more likely that this device would help broadcasters than viewers. They'd throw one of these cameras up on a cable above a stadium, running it back and forth and it would be the director who chose the most interesting angle from the 10 offered.
S/MIME doomed itself the moment it was based on signed certs obtained from a CA. A few corps might bother with the effort but nobody else would, especially since the cert usually cost money and obtaining it was onerous. And support in most email clients sucked.
I think GPG is a safer bet because it's easy to create a key (btw it doesn't stop CAs selling signed keys if they wished). But at the same time, very few people are going to go to the effort and the ubquity of webmail means many people can't use it without a plugin or whatever.
I think the best chance of crypto becoming prevalent is for some major zone (e.g. the EU) to require browsers to implement a cryptographic framework exposed from JS so that crypto happens client side, and mandate that all webmail destined for government contracts support it. The client side crypto could be OpenPGP compatible to ensure that users can easily create keys and exchange them.
Of course the likes of Mozilla / Google / Microsoft should be proactively stepping up and providing a specification and implementation of this. If they can produce a spec for DRM extensions in browsers, then surely they can do the same for crypto.
11 responses and counting and very few who seem to have bothered to read the submission what it's supposed to do or the point I was making. It may very well be you can adblock but that is utterly beside the point when considering this software, it's purpose or the trustworthiness of who publishes it.
Ah I see. So The Pirate Bay puts malicious ads in as some kind of l33t hacker test does it? And not as a form of revenue stream of taking money where they can get it? And that their own "Pirate browser", a bundle of browser and tor will block those ads and any action they perform? And that given all that they can be trusted on to produce and support this browser bundle? I thought I made my point fairly obvious the first time around but clearly not.
I suggest in future you read the topic and comprehend the context and concerns in which I responded. It might allow you to formulate something a little less condescending and a little more thoughtful than the mastubatory ego trip you posted this time around.
The Pirate Bay hosts some of the sleaziest and malicious advertising banners of any web site. Ads that pop up masquerading as system alerts, porn ads, ads which trigger downloads of files like executables and apks. This is not a site that I would trust in any way to provide the browsing or download software.
S/MIME encrypted email is virtually dead. It was and still is badly implemented in email software (e.g. stuff like searching encrypted messages is usually totally broken) and the ludicrous efforts required to obtain and maintain a key render it useless to all but the most determined person.
At least with GPG/PGP you can roll a key with no effort and there are public key servers to upload the public key. Persuading someone else to generate such a key and use it is another matter. Probably needs a strong business case which can be impressed on the other person.
Well exactly. China and Russia are guilty of very serious human rights issues (at least by comparison to most Western states including the US). But while the US is performing extrajudicial killings, internments, secret arrests and secret court orders etc. it provides an an excuse for Russia to invoke the "you too" logical fallacy, i.e. that because you're guilty in some measure of what you accuse me of, it somehow absolves me of doing exactly the same only worse.
It may be a logical fallacy but most people wouldn't see it in those terms. If the US wants to take the moral highground it has to act virtuously. And of late (since 9/11 basically) it has not been acting that way.
Slashdot Mirror
That really doesn't mean much because there is a human there to extricate it if it becomes stuck, indecisive or whatever.
I can see self driving being available on controlled roads like motorways. I do not see any possible way that it would be allowed on minor roads, or without the presence of an alert human driver. It's very easy to conceive scenarios that a car couldn't possibly cope with now, or any time in the forseeable future.
I couldn't give a fig really. This article was talking about running a shim to a proprietary silverlight plugin to obtain streaming video. Before that Linux had to use a proprietary Flash player. Using a browser which has some binary DRM is of little matter to me. Netflix and other streaming content providers have to use DRM and simply won't support a platform if there is no way to economically achieve it.
I expect Netflix has no choice but to DRM the content as part of its contractual obligations and therefore any platform which does not provide a suitably strong DRM cannot be supported.
In any event Netflix is one of the stakeholders in the encrypted media extensions for HTML 5, so potentially at least one Linux browser, be it Chrome or Firefox could potentially be blessed to stream on Linux one day.
Problem here is that this is Windows RT we're talking about it which is ARM based and therefore incompatible with all Windows software except metro apps. It's not like there is a huge selection of metro apps either, especially compared to other tablet operating systems.
Except plan B won't happen any time in the foreseeable future.
If cars were ever permitted to "self drive", it would most likely be for limited circumstances (e.g. on motorways). I doubt it would be permitted in a more dynamic urban environment where it's obvious how badly and inconsiderately it might behave. I expect vehicles would be required to revert to manual driving (perhaps with driver assist mode) in those circumstances and the driver would be required to be unimpaired at all times regardless of what the car is doing.
Don't tell them how it was done. No threats, no extortion, just don't tell them. Let them figure it out on their own dime.
Well that's the point. People would have to decide if the data is worth protecting. If they share it with Google they are essentially sharing it with any government party which has reason to take an interest in it. Maybe that doesn't matter if you're storing weather readings. It might if you are storing personal data about or produced by people.
Is feed your kids soda. After all, do you want your kids to be on the receiving end of punches or on the giving end?
Its AES. Its a symmetric-key algorithm. The encryption key is the decryption key. Whats with all the jokes about decryption keys?
And the fact the keys are symmetric and held by Google renders the entire exercise entirely worthless. If Google have the key to encrypt/decrypt data then they can just hand it to the NSA or whomever at the same time they hand over the data.
The proper and correct thing to do is to provide a pluggable API in their client apps that allows an extension running client side to manage the key and encrypt / decrypt the data. And similarly for their cloud APIs for languages like Java.
Google would have absolutely no idea what the data contains and absolutely no way to retrieve it either. It might mean certain functionality in their apps / services is affected in some ways (e.g. encrypted folders are inaccessible via a browser) but I assume they could spell out the consequences and people motivated to encrypt data would recognize those limitations.
Well then they need to offer more money, or grin and bear it.
Go underground and suddenly that 6 billion price tag becomes 60 billion.
I am personally not a fan of "Do as I say, not as I do..." but when you are giving your market competitor access to your content like this, it doesn't seem a totally unreasonable request, does it?
Well it might do if it results in a shittier user experience. For example load the YouTube website in Chrome on Android and compare the experience to the native app. It's clearly inferior and I fail to see MS doing much better if they were expected to embed HTML in their app.
That said, it's a complex situation. Google clearly have the right to block an app which is not in compliance with their rules or deprives them of ad revenue. But at the same time there are obvious conflicts of interest here which could make Google behave like assholes simply because they're in direct competition with Microsoft in so many areas. The simplest solution is probably for Microsoft to pay Google a very large amount of money to write the app themselves (with the appropriate metro L&F) and for MS to ship it with their OS. In much the same way as Google do for iOS.
Aside from that they really need to drive a stake through the heart of RT. I doubt it would be successful even on 7" devices. Just kill the fucking thing and work on some decent Windows 8 based devices based on Atom chips.
It's not unlikely. This sort of setup is quite common for major sporting events already, e.g the London olympics had cameras strung on cables and running over the stadiums as do many major sporting events. Commercial systems like Skycam are used already. The major difference in this particular camera is that a director has a 360 degree field of vision from the 10 views which are combined in software. I assume several of cameras could also be stuck on poles at advantageous points around the stadium. I don't see it being any use to client side of the broadcast unless the channel streams the content in some other way and provides software to process the image into something meaningful.
The solution would be for the phone to periodically generate a random MAC for the purposes of scanning hotspots. If a user explicitly chooses to connect to a wifi hotspot the genuine MAC is presented and the connection proceeds with that. The behaviour could be turned on by default without affecting the user experience in any way. The random MAC could change every hour or so making the information transient and relatively useless to anybody who is snooping on it.
It's more likely that this device would help broadcasters than viewers. They'd throw one of these cameras up on a cable above a stadium, running it back and forth and it would be the director who chose the most interesting angle from the 10 offered.
I think GPG is a safer bet because it's easy to create a key (btw it doesn't stop CAs selling signed keys if they wished). But at the same time, very few people are going to go to the effort and the ubquity of webmail means many people can't use it without a plugin or whatever.
I think the best chance of crypto becoming prevalent is for some major zone (e.g. the EU) to require browsers to implement a cryptographic framework exposed from JS so that crypto happens client side, and mandate that all webmail destined for government contracts support it. The client side crypto could be OpenPGP compatible to ensure that users can easily create keys and exchange them.
Of course the likes of Mozilla / Google / Microsoft should be proactively stepping up and providing a specification and implementation of this. If they can produce a spec for DRM extensions in browsers, then surely they can do the same for crypto.
11 responses and counting and very few who seem to have bothered to read the submission what it's supposed to do or the point I was making. It may very well be you can adblock but that is utterly beside the point when considering this software, it's purpose or the trustworthiness of who publishes it.
Ah I see. So The Pirate Bay puts malicious ads in as some kind of l33t hacker test does it? And not as a form of revenue stream of taking money where they can get it? And that their own "Pirate browser", a bundle of browser and tor will block those ads and any action they perform? And that given all that they can be trusted on to produce and support this browser bundle? I thought I made my point fairly obvious the first time around but clearly not.
I suggest in future you read the topic and comprehend the context and concerns in which I responded. It might allow you to formulate something a little less condescending and a little more thoughtful than the mastubatory ego trip you posted this time around.
The Pirate Bay hosts some of the sleaziest and malicious advertising banners of any web site. Ads that pop up masquerading as system alerts, porn ads, ads which trigger downloads of files like executables and apks. This is not a site that I would trust in any way to provide the browsing or download software.
At least with GPG/PGP you can roll a key with no effort and there are public key servers to upload the public key. Persuading someone else to generate such a key and use it is another matter. Probably needs a strong business case which can be impressed on the other person.
It may be a logical fallacy but most people wouldn't see it in those terms. If the US wants to take the moral highground it has to act virtuously. And of late (since 9/11 basically) it has not been acting that way.