Find an outlet and plug it in for a while....or carry one of those spare charger thingees.
Or, if you really are a terrorist and want put a bomb in your laptop, just replace the 8-cell battery with a one-cell, which will give you enough power to pass this test while still giving you lots of room for explosives.
While technically true, it could just as easily have said "which could contain pictures of cats with grammatically incorrect captions" to avoid sounding so fanatical.
For people who distribute pictures like that, hangin's too good for 'em.
I'm still waiting for the Teeth of the Tiger shopping-mall attacks. We saw what happened in Kenya recently. Just imagine that in several malls across the US.
The scenarios from Larry Bond's The Enemy Within are also pretty scary. If they came to pass, it's likely the entire US highway system would be completely TSA'd.
You can't have burn in when it's a blank black screen.
LCDs use more power when displaying a completely black screen (since they have to charge the cell to have the crystals become non-transparent), and thus are more likely to get a dark image "stuck".
Turn off the video signal to the monitor and let the power saver mode kick in.
The problem is that a reasonable timeout that will provide you some sort of protection is way too short if the power to the display is truly being turned off. It takes my TV about 5 seconds to recognize that the video signal has come back, and it would be very painful if after two minutes (my screensaver timeouts on boxes I can configure) of pause, I have to hit some "do nothing" button to wake up the display so that I can then hit play and not miss anything.
Also, if you have any of the auto-sensing video switches/receivers, it's a real pain when then source signal completely disappears, as the unit switches to the next input with a signal.
Limiting number of RCPT TO lines is a fucking awful way to handle spam, and explicitly discouraged by RFC 2821:
All that says is that you should not reject the message based on the number of recipients. You can, however, temporarily reject (using a 4xx status code) recipients after some set number. Any good MTA will retry the tempfails.
I currently have a variation of this in place where any e-mail to a "special" address (like postmaster or webmaster) can't have any other recipients at my mail server. Right now, it's a log-only rule, and hasn't been triggered very often, but I wanted to make sure I don't reject or filter messages to those addresses, but I also don't want them to be used to allow unfiltered spam to be sent to everyone else in the domain.
OTOH, if the e-mail is a bounce (defined as from ""), I do reject it if it has multiple recipients, directly in violation of the RFC portion you quote. The is because a bounce is to notify the sender that something went wrong, and it's impossible to have more than one sender.
The nonsensical phrase 'double optin' points strongly in that direction.
That phrase is just a shorter way of saying "opt-in plus confirm". If a website gets a request for adding an e-mail address to their list, sends a "confirm that you really wanted this" e-mail to the address, and doesn't send any more e-mail unless you click the link and confirm, they definitely aren't a spammer. Honestly, anybody who has a true opt-out that really stops e-mail isn't a spammer...they just aren't as nice as the ones who require opt-in for everything.
I use a separate e-mail address for every website I deal with, and I can tell you that with over 500 e-mail addresses, only one or two has ever had a problem where I couldn't opt-out of marketing e-mail. OTOH, my real e-mail address (that only friends have) gets lots of true spam attempts. When you run your own e-mail server, you get to see what really happens, and the reality is that legitimate companies already try to do the right thing as far as opt-in/opt-out.
And, e-mail isn't really a big deal...I'm much more annoyed by companies that auto-check the "remember my payment information" box, and then require you to jump through hoops to change to a different payment method on the next purchase.
It's a matter of reasonable effort. How can a company determine that a given email destination is Canadian?
It's impossible without also collecting the user's physical address. A Canadian citizen living in Canada using a gmail.com should be covered by this law, while a US citizen living in the US who happens to have an e-mail provider with servers located in Canada should not be covered by the law.
Canada is the party at fault, Microsoft is just responding to a stupid law.
Whats stupid about requiring people to opt-in?
Because this law (and any anti-spam law) is just like DRM...it only really affects honest people.
Large companies like Microsoft generally try not to "spam" you. Yes, you may technically receive an unwanted e-mail from them, but they do use some sort of opt-in right now. On the other had, true spammers don't care...they are just blasting e-mail to any e-mail address they can get their hands on. Then, when it comes time to enforce the law, only companies that are easy to find will actually be prosecuted...the fly-by-night spammers will never be bothered by this law, and if they are, it's likely they won't end up paying any penalties anyway, as their assets won't be as easy to find.
What this law does is make any company that wants to send you e-mail have to have opt-in plus confirm for every change of preferences, plus they will have to keep a lot more information about you, and this law seems to prohibit them from giving you a choice to receive "non-related" e-mail. Every e-mail under this law must fit a narrow category for which you opt-in. So, if you signed up for e-mail about "Windows 8.1", if MS releases "Windows 8.2", they cannot send you an e-mail in the "Windows 8.1" category that says "hey, Win 8.2 is out, it's great". This means that their categories will end up being broader, and this will inevitably result in more spam complaints about them, as they would "annoy" people by sending Windows 8 info on the "Windows" list, when all some people want is Windows 7 info.
A small business/website will be impacted even more. I recently got an update from a website that said they had partnered with a different company for their Android app, so the old app won't work anymore, and you'd have to download the new one separately. How in the world could I have opted-in to that e-mail before the fact, since blanket opt-in isn't permitted by this Canadian law. A few complaints from Canadian users, and this small site would have been bankrupted by the fines.
And, again, real spammers won't have to care about any of these issues, and you will still get phishing e-mail from "Expedited Shipping" about "Delivery Notification".
The Fifth does not have a catch-22. Invoking it may not be considered an admission of guilt.
The case in the GP post (LEOs know you have the key, ask you for it, but don't suspect there is evidence on the drive concerning you) does turn into catch-22.
Your two choices in that instance are to provide the key or not. Providing the key means that obviously there is nothing on the drive concerning you (unless you are really stupid).
Not providing the key gets you thrown in jail for obstruction unless you invoke your right to avoid self-incrimination. Thus, if you invoke your 5th amendment rights, LEOs know that there has to be something on the drive concerning you, since it has been upheld that "pleading the 5th" when it doesn't actually apply is illegal. So, when you invoke your rights they can throw you in jail for obstruction (claiming you are lying about the contents of the drive incriminating you). OTOH, if you really do have a valid 5th amendment claim, this means that they have certain proof that something on that drive is evidence of a crime you committed...the trick is proving which crime.
Which is where the catch-22 comes in...in this case, invoking your rights leads to the inescapable conclusion that there is definitely evidence against you of a crime on that drive. The only real question is whether LEOs having a search warrant for the drive concerning somebody else could then use information on the drive as evidence against you in an unrelated crime. If they can't, then of course you happily turn over the key 100% of the time.
Basically, this boils down to the 5th amendment only really protecting you when you are the target of the investigation. When you aren't the target, have evidence about the target, and have committed crimes yourself, you end up being SOL unless somebody wants to grant you immunity.
There really was no excuse for piracy! And yet piracy was rampant! It was all over the torrents. Just to save a penny?!
It's absolutely true that some people won't pay for anything, but those people aren't lost sales, either.
Between them and the people who don't like the number of hoops you have to jump through when you do pay (one of the latest Humble Bundles was for Steam keys, which isn't a problem for me, but some people didn't like it), there is a lot of instances of "piracy" counted where the price of the product is completely unrelated to the percentage of unlicensed copies.
If somebody could tell me how to get Metro 2033 to stop stuttering on a machine that is twice as fast as anything you could have purchased when it was first released, I'd be happier.
I've tried everything on every page Google suggests, but I still get 80 frames per second 95% of the time, with sudden drops to 5fps for about a half-second. I can even drop down the quality and resolution so that the difference is even more dramatic: 140fps down to the same 5fps. Metro: Last Light runs fine, so I suspect the engine upgrade solved the problem. Hopefully, the Redux version using the new engine will drop to less than $10 by the time I've gone through all the other games I bought.
Even if the hard drive isn't yours, or it hasn't been established that it's yours, if they know you have the password for whatever reason they can compel you to give it up. Failure to do so would at least be obstruction, or perhaps as bad as aiding and abetting.
Catch-22, then, as if you invoke your right against self-incrimination, they know that the drive has something about a crime you committed, while if you merely refuse to provide the key, you are arrested for obstruction, regardless of whether or not you actually have the key.
The court cannot compel speech, or "a product of the mind" like a combination or encryption key, if in doing so the individual would incriminate himself. The exception -- the ONLY exception -- is when specific evidence or illegal material is already known to be inside, "with reasonable particularity" as the courts have put it.
In this case, the defendant admitted the encrypted data is communications with someone who is not his lawyer, and the state showed that those communications are likely to be evidence in this case. So, this time, the ruling is correct.
If, however, the defendant had an encrypted file and the state had no knowledge of what might be in it, then the mere fact that it is encrypted is not probable cause to issue a warrant to compel the release of the password.
You do realize that encrypting your hard drive with a key you keep in your head really is just security through obscurity...if somebody discovers the key, they can decrypt the drive. All the anonymous poster is doing is using a really long key, and a unique way to remember what that key is.
It's not bad because he is using a file on the drive as the key...it's bad because the file could be updated at any time, thus wiping the key.
>Me, I'm hanging onto my Bookeen Cybook Opus. It actually has buttons instead of a touchscreen. I don't need gestures, swipes, and text entry. I need 'push here for next page' and 'push here for previous page' and a D-pad for selecting books and working menus.
I have a 10" Onyx Boox because I wanted the larger form factor, ePub support, and better PDF support. I'm right with you on the need for physical buttons, but the Boox also comes with a stylus that allows faster navigation in some situations.
From what I can tell, every e-reader has their own problems, mostly because of the HTML support of their reader software, but there are also some UI and usability issues as well. The Boox is basically stupid, with no catalog for books, but that means I can just copy books over using the USB connection and build my own structure using the file system. Once you are reading, though, it doesn't get in the way, and getting to the table of contents of a book is the only thing that I wish was more streamlined.
Since changing devices could be painful depending on what HTML is used by your existing e-books, I'll probably stick with this unit for quite a while.
Yes, but the each is still only encrypted once, so that all copies of HGTV (for example) transmitted by Dish use the same encryption. The unique part of the card is the part that controls whether that card is allowed to be used to decrypt a particular stream.
Aereo stored and encrypted your personal copy of a broadcast separately and differently from somebody else's copy.
Somewhere around the 5th to 7th inning I grew up with Jack Buck or Mike Shannon saying: "This broadcast is presented by the authority of Major League Baseball and the St. Louis Cardinals, LLC. Accounts and descriptions of the game may not be retransmitted or broadcast without prior written consent of the St. Louis Cardinals, LLC.
Regardless of Jack Buck's credentials as a broadcaster, that doesn't make this statement of supposed copyright law accurate.
There are many exceptions that would allow complete re-transmission (like listening over bluetooth headphones). In addition, there are many fair use ways to copy the broadcast that don't require written permission.
The problem with this ruling is that technically, bluetooth headphones are covered by it. So would receiving the broadcast using a radio connected to your PC, then streaming it to your phone over the Internet. Even if only you can access the stream (which is exactly what Aereo was selling...the hardware and software that let you do something you could do for yourself if you wanted to), it's infringement according to this ruling. And, it's a really bad ruling since there is no higher court, and we know that a Congress that gets a lot of money from cable companies won't amend the law to say that the length of the wire on a private stream doesn't matter.
Yes, SCOTUS claims this doesn't apply to Amazon letting you stream music you own a copy of without ever having to upload that copy, but you can bet some lawyer is going to try and use it as a precedent.
If you only work 40 hours per week, your hourly rate is the same as someone who works 47 hours per week.
That's the way I look at my work time...how much am I getting per hour. I have no problem working extra when needed, even if that happens far more often than your once every year or so. But, if I was required to work 50 hours every week, I'd guess that most of my fellow employees were in the same bind, and we'd definitely have a talk with management about hiring more people to meet the demand.
Fair enough. I did not realize we were talking about USA specifically.
I know that the word "Americans" in the summary could technically mean anyone from North or South America, but when "Canadians" are also specifically referenced, that should be enough of a clue that the article is about the United States. Even without that, "Americans" pretty much universally means people in the US...USians hasn't ever caught on.
And, no significant part of North or South America was bombed in World War II. So, how did you see "Americans" and treat that as "Europeans" or "Japan, East Asia and the Pacific dwellers"?
EA's game costs $50. There are 1000 teenagers willing to pay to play it.
This is the problem with all piracy claims. There is no way to verify that those 1000 teenagers would actually pay the money for the game if that really was the only way to play the game. They might say they would pay, but when push comes to shove, that $50 might be too much for them to afford, so they just do without.
Based on all the survey results I have seen, many people who use software that isn't properly licensed do so because the license terms are too painful, not because the actual cash outlay is too much. The biggest issues are DRM and buggy software (often caused by the DRM) that doesn't get patched. When you can download software via torrent and use it 100% of the time without worrying if the license server is available to authorize you, that software is worth a lot more than the version that requires you to jump through hoops just to use it. Add in the price difference (free vs. whatever the retail version costs), and it's really a no-brainer...people will always take a free Porsche over an expensive Yugo.
I've been computer/console gaming since the early 80's and one thing I learned by the 90's. Never pre order any game. NEVER.
And, if having the game at the same time as other people isn't required for play (e.g., if multiplayer isn't your primary play style), then just wait until you can get the game at 20% of original cost.
I've spent around $110 on the Steam summer sale, but I picked up 17 games, many of them "AAA", and by now I really know if the game stands the test of time.
The solution is VERY simple. Generate a random 256 bit string. Hash random-string+data, and use the output as the identifier. Throw away the random 256 bit string.
How is this any more secure than assigning a the random 256 bit string as the identifier (with collision prevention, of course)?
Next, how would a random sort of the original keys (SELECT DISTINCT medallion_number FROM the_table ORDER BY RANDOM) followed by assigning 1..number_of_medallions to use as the identifier be less secure?
As others have stated, you could even just assign the new identifier sequentially if the source table isn't sorted by the key you are trying to obscure.
Slashdot Mirror
Find an outlet and plug it in for a while....or carry one of those spare charger thingees.
Or, if you really are a terrorist and want put a bomb in your laptop, just replace the 8-cell battery with a one-cell, which will give you enough power to pass this test while still giving you lots of room for explosives.
While technically true, it could just as easily have said "which could contain pictures of cats with grammatically incorrect captions" to avoid sounding so fanatical.
For people who distribute pictures like that, hangin's too good for 'em.
I'm still waiting for the Teeth of the Tiger shopping-mall attacks. We saw what happened in Kenya recently. Just imagine that in several malls across the US.
The scenarios from Larry Bond's The Enemy Within are also pretty scary. If they came to pass, it's likely the entire US highway system would be completely TSA'd.
You can't have burn in when it's a blank black screen.
LCDs use more power when displaying a completely black screen (since they have to charge the cell to have the crystals become non-transparent), and thus are more likely to get a dark image "stuck".
Turn off the video signal to the monitor and let the power saver mode kick in.
The problem is that a reasonable timeout that will provide you some sort of protection is way too short if the power to the display is truly being turned off. It takes my TV about 5 seconds to recognize that the video signal has come back, and it would be very painful if after two minutes (my screensaver timeouts on boxes I can configure) of pause, I have to hit some "do nothing" button to wake up the display so that I can then hit play and not miss anything.
Also, if you have any of the auto-sensing video switches/receivers, it's a real pain when then source signal completely disappears, as the unit switches to the next input with a signal.
Limiting number of RCPT TO lines is a fucking awful way to handle spam, and explicitly discouraged by RFC 2821:
All that says is that you should not reject the message based on the number of recipients. You can, however, temporarily reject (using a 4xx status code) recipients after some set number. Any good MTA will retry the tempfails.
I currently have a variation of this in place where any e-mail to a "special" address (like postmaster or webmaster) can't have any other recipients at my mail server. Right now, it's a log-only rule, and hasn't been triggered very often, but I wanted to make sure I don't reject or filter messages to those addresses, but I also don't want them to be used to allow unfiltered spam to be sent to everyone else in the domain.
OTOH, if the e-mail is a bounce (defined as from ""), I do reject it if it has multiple recipients, directly in violation of the RFC portion you quote. The is because a bounce is to notify the sender that something went wrong, and it's impossible to have more than one sender.
VCRs always needed to use "analog hole" methods and unencrypted signals.... DVRs were not allowed to move programs without permission.
Sure they were...I did it all the time with recordings of OTA HDTV using a MyHD card in my PC.
I think you are assuming that "DVR" == "device supplied by cable or satellite company to record encrypted signals".
The nonsensical phrase 'double optin' points strongly in that direction.
That phrase is just a shorter way of saying "opt-in plus confirm". If a website gets a request for adding an e-mail address to their list, sends a "confirm that you really wanted this" e-mail to the address, and doesn't send any more e-mail unless you click the link and confirm, they definitely aren't a spammer. Honestly, anybody who has a true opt-out that really stops e-mail isn't a spammer...they just aren't as nice as the ones who require opt-in for everything.
I use a separate e-mail address for every website I deal with, and I can tell you that with over 500 e-mail addresses, only one or two has ever had a problem where I couldn't opt-out of marketing e-mail. OTOH, my real e-mail address (that only friends have) gets lots of true spam attempts. When you run your own e-mail server, you get to see what really happens, and the reality is that legitimate companies already try to do the right thing as far as opt-in/opt-out.
And, e-mail isn't really a big deal...I'm much more annoyed by companies that auto-check the "remember my payment information" box, and then require you to jump through hoops to change to a different payment method on the next purchase.
It's a matter of reasonable effort. How can a company determine that a given email destination is Canadian?
It's impossible without also collecting the user's physical address. A Canadian citizen living in Canada using a gmail.com should be covered by this law, while a US citizen living in the US who happens to have an e-mail provider with servers located in Canada should not be covered by the law.
Canada is the party at fault, Microsoft is just responding to a stupid law.
Whats stupid about requiring people to opt-in?
Because this law (and any anti-spam law) is just like DRM...it only really affects honest people.
Large companies like Microsoft generally try not to "spam" you. Yes, you may technically receive an unwanted e-mail from them, but they do use some sort of opt-in right now. On the other had, true spammers don't care...they are just blasting e-mail to any e-mail address they can get their hands on. Then, when it comes time to enforce the law, only companies that are easy to find will actually be prosecuted...the fly-by-night spammers will never be bothered by this law, and if they are, it's likely they won't end up paying any penalties anyway, as their assets won't be as easy to find.
What this law does is make any company that wants to send you e-mail have to have opt-in plus confirm for every change of preferences, plus they will have to keep a lot more information about you, and this law seems to prohibit them from giving you a choice to receive "non-related" e-mail. Every e-mail under this law must fit a narrow category for which you opt-in. So, if you signed up for e-mail about "Windows 8.1", if MS releases "Windows 8.2", they cannot send you an e-mail in the "Windows 8.1" category that says "hey, Win 8.2 is out, it's great". This means that their categories will end up being broader, and this will inevitably result in more spam complaints about them, as they would "annoy" people by sending Windows 8 info on the "Windows" list, when all some people want is Windows 7 info.
A small business/website will be impacted even more. I recently got an update from a website that said they had partnered with a different company for their Android app, so the old app won't work anymore, and you'd have to download the new one separately. How in the world could I have opted-in to that e-mail before the fact, since blanket opt-in isn't permitted by this Canadian law. A few complaints from Canadian users, and this small site would have been bankrupted by the fines.
And, again, real spammers won't have to care about any of these issues, and you will still get phishing e-mail from "Expedited Shipping" about "Delivery Notification".
The Fifth does not have a catch-22. Invoking it may not be considered an admission of guilt.
The case in the GP post (LEOs know you have the key, ask you for it, but don't suspect there is evidence on the drive concerning you) does turn into catch-22.
Your two choices in that instance are to provide the key or not. Providing the key means that obviously there is nothing on the drive concerning you (unless you are really stupid).
Not providing the key gets you thrown in jail for obstruction unless you invoke your right to avoid self-incrimination. Thus, if you invoke your 5th amendment rights, LEOs know that there has to be something on the drive concerning you, since it has been upheld that "pleading the 5th" when it doesn't actually apply is illegal. So, when you invoke your rights they can throw you in jail for obstruction (claiming you are lying about the contents of the drive incriminating you). OTOH, if you really do have a valid 5th amendment claim, this means that they have certain proof that something on that drive is evidence of a crime you committed...the trick is proving which crime.
Which is where the catch-22 comes in...in this case, invoking your rights leads to the inescapable conclusion that there is definitely evidence against you of a crime on that drive. The only real question is whether LEOs having a search warrant for the drive concerning somebody else could then use information on the drive as evidence against you in an unrelated crime. If they can't, then of course you happily turn over the key 100% of the time.
Basically, this boils down to the 5th amendment only really protecting you when you are the target of the investigation. When you aren't the target, have evidence about the target, and have committed crimes yourself, you end up being SOL unless somebody wants to grant you immunity.
There really was no excuse for piracy! And yet piracy was rampant! It was all over the torrents. Just to save a penny?!
It's absolutely true that some people won't pay for anything, but those people aren't lost sales, either.
Between them and the people who don't like the number of hoops you have to jump through when you do pay (one of the latest Humble Bundles was for Steam keys, which isn't a problem for me, but some people didn't like it), there is a lot of instances of "piracy" counted where the price of the product is completely unrelated to the percentage of unlicensed copies.
If somebody could tell me how to get Metro 2033 to stop stuttering on a machine that is twice as fast as anything you could have purchased when it was first released, I'd be happier.
I've tried everything on every page Google suggests, but I still get 80 frames per second 95% of the time, with sudden drops to 5fps for about a half-second. I can even drop down the quality and resolution so that the difference is even more dramatic: 140fps down to the same 5fps. Metro: Last Light runs fine, so I suspect the engine upgrade solved the problem. Hopefully, the Redux version using the new engine will drop to less than $10 by the time I've gone through all the other games I bought.
Even if the hard drive isn't yours, or it hasn't been established that it's yours, if they know you have the password for whatever reason they can compel you to give it up. Failure to do so would at least be obstruction, or perhaps as bad as aiding and abetting.
Catch-22, then, as if you invoke your right against self-incrimination, they know that the drive has something about a crime you committed, while if you merely refuse to provide the key, you are arrested for obstruction, regardless of whether or not you actually have the key.
The court cannot compel speech, or "a product of the mind" like a combination or encryption key, if in doing so the individual would incriminate himself. The exception -- the ONLY exception -- is when specific evidence or illegal material is already known to be inside, "with reasonable particularity" as the courts have put it.
In this case, the defendant admitted the encrypted data is communications with someone who is not his lawyer, and the state showed that those communications are likely to be evidence in this case. So, this time, the ruling is correct.
If, however, the defendant had an encrypted file and the state had no knowledge of what might be in it, then the mere fact that it is encrypted is not probable cause to issue a warrant to compel the release of the password.
Security through obscurity isn't security, anon.
You do realize that encrypting your hard drive with a key you keep in your head really is just security through obscurity...if somebody discovers the key, they can decrypt the drive. All the anonymous poster is doing is using a really long key, and a unique way to remember what that key is.
It's not bad because he is using a file on the drive as the key...it's bad because the file could be updated at any time, thus wiping the key.
>Me, I'm hanging onto my Bookeen Cybook Opus. It actually has buttons instead of a touchscreen. I don't need gestures, swipes, and text entry. I need 'push here for next page' and 'push here for previous page' and a D-pad for selecting books and working menus.
I have a 10" Onyx Boox because I wanted the larger form factor, ePub support, and better PDF support. I'm right with you on the need for physical buttons, but the Boox also comes with a stylus that allows faster navigation in some situations.
From what I can tell, every e-reader has their own problems, mostly because of the HTML support of their reader software, but there are also some UI and usability issues as well. The Boox is basically stupid, with no catalog for books, but that means I can just copy books over using the USB connection and build my own structure using the file system. Once you are reading, though, it doesn't get in the way, and getting to the table of contents of a book is the only thing that I wish was more streamlined.
Since changing devices could be painful depending on what HTML is used by your existing e-books, I'll probably stick with this unit for quite a while.
viola! Nerdgasm.
Nerds get off on stringed musical instruments?
Think "vo-ee-la" when spelling the term you were trying to use.
Yes, but the each is still only encrypted once, so that all copies of HGTV (for example) transmitted by Dish use the same encryption. The unique part of the card is the part that controls whether that card is allowed to be used to decrypt a particular stream.
Aereo stored and encrypted your personal copy of a broadcast separately and differently from somebody else's copy.
Somewhere around the 5th to 7th inning I grew up with Jack Buck or Mike Shannon saying: "This broadcast is presented by the authority of Major League Baseball and the St. Louis Cardinals, LLC. Accounts and descriptions of the game may not be retransmitted or broadcast without prior written consent of the St. Louis Cardinals, LLC.
Regardless of Jack Buck's credentials as a broadcaster, that doesn't make this statement of supposed copyright law accurate.
There are many exceptions that would allow complete re-transmission (like listening over bluetooth headphones). In addition, there are many fair use ways to copy the broadcast that don't require written permission.
The problem with this ruling is that technically, bluetooth headphones are covered by it. So would receiving the broadcast using a radio connected to your PC, then streaming it to your phone over the Internet. Even if only you can access the stream (which is exactly what Aereo was selling...the hardware and software that let you do something you could do for yourself if you wanted to), it's infringement according to this ruling. And, it's a really bad ruling since there is no higher court, and we know that a Congress that gets a lot of money from cable companies won't amend the law to say that the length of the wire on a private stream doesn't matter.
Yes, SCOTUS claims this doesn't apply to Amazon letting you stream music you own a copy of without ever having to upload that copy, but you can bet some lawyer is going to try and use it as a precedent.
My pay is about 15% below market average
If you only work 40 hours per week, your hourly rate is the same as someone who works 47 hours per week.
That's the way I look at my work time...how much am I getting per hour. I have no problem working extra when needed, even if that happens far more often than your once every year or so. But, if I was required to work 50 hours every week, I'd guess that most of my fellow employees were in the same bind, and we'd definitely have a talk with management about hiring more people to meet the demand.
Fair enough. I did not realize we were talking about USA specifically.
I know that the word "Americans" in the summary could technically mean anyone from North or South America, but when "Canadians" are also specifically referenced, that should be enough of a clue that the article is about the United States. Even without that, "Americans" pretty much universally means people in the US...USians hasn't ever caught on.
And, no significant part of North or South America was bombed in World War II. So, how did you see "Americans" and treat that as "Europeans" or "Japan, East Asia and the Pacific dwellers"?
EA's game costs $50. There are 1000 teenagers willing to pay to play it.
This is the problem with all piracy claims. There is no way to verify that those 1000 teenagers would actually pay the money for the game if that really was the only way to play the game. They might say they would pay, but when push comes to shove, that $50 might be too much for them to afford, so they just do without.
Based on all the survey results I have seen, many people who use software that isn't properly licensed do so because the license terms are too painful, not because the actual cash outlay is too much. The biggest issues are DRM and buggy software (often caused by the DRM) that doesn't get patched. When you can download software via torrent and use it 100% of the time without worrying if the license server is available to authorize you, that software is worth a lot more than the version that requires you to jump through hoops just to use it. Add in the price difference (free vs. whatever the retail version costs), and it's really a no-brainer...people will always take a free Porsche over an expensive Yugo.
I've been computer/console gaming since the early 80's and one thing I learned by the 90's. Never pre order any game. NEVER.
And, if having the game at the same time as other people isn't required for play (e.g., if multiplayer isn't your primary play style), then just wait until you can get the game at 20% of original cost.
I've spent around $110 on the Steam summer sale, but I picked up 17 games, many of them "AAA", and by now I really know if the game stands the test of time.
CREATE TABLE id_link (
new_id INT AUTO_INCREMENT,
old_id CHAR(50)
);
INSERT INTO id_link (old_id)
SELECT DISTINCT old_id
FROM old_table ORDER BY RAND();
SELECT new_id, other_field_1_from_old_table, other_field_2_from_old_table
FROM old_table, id_link
WHERE old_table.old_id = id_link.old_id;
How hard was that?
The solution is VERY simple. Generate a random 256 bit string. Hash random-string+data, and use the output as the identifier. Throw away the random 256 bit string.
How is this any more secure than assigning a the random 256 bit string as the identifier (with collision prevention, of course)?
Next, how would a random sort of the original keys (SELECT DISTINCT medallion_number FROM the_table ORDER BY RANDOM) followed by assigning 1..number_of_medallions to use as the identifier be less secure?
As others have stated, you could even just assign the new identifier sequentially if the source table isn't sorted by the key you are trying to obscure.