Atom shines in thin clients and low power workstations, and things like home-theater PCs.
I agree (speaking from 2009) and (even here in 2013) still use an Atom(ION) HTPC. I love it, as far as hardware-I-already-have goes. But you need to check out the lowest-power Ivy Bridge and upcoming Haswells. They are seriously encroaching on what used to be Atom's power usage, except much much faster and without the need for any Nvidia chips or drivers. I am not kidding: think carefully and look at what's available, before you buy another Atom (or Bobcat) board. Atom is either a has-been in this area, or is fading fast. If Atom's going to continue, it has to invade ARM's market, because Haswell is invading Atom's market.
A law isn't going to stop a doctor from divulging your personal records to someone you don't want them to. It only stands to try and prevent through the prospect of punishment. DRM could prevent it altogether.
No, it can't. If the doctor wishes to nefariously leak the information, then the DRM will not stop him. Worst case, he can take a photograph of the screen (not that it's likely to require anything so extreme). He can read it aloud while another person (or robot) in the room listens.
If DRM actually solved some kind of problem, you could maybe make a case that the enormous costs of it were balanced by.. something. You could say that it's worth it to use force against doctors to require them to use crippled (yet strangely more expensive) computers which serve a higher agenda (no leakage) than the computer owner's agenda. But after a few decades of the scammers trying to come up with a working application, they still don't have even a demo!
This is like saying taxpayers ought to be forced to pay astrologers, before you have shown evidence that astrology works. Show the evidence that astrology might not be bullshit (you don't need to prove anything, just provide some evidence), and then we can have the cost/benefit debate. Right now, it's nothing-for-something, an objectively stupid tradeoff where breaking even is the best possible scenario, and most paths lead to loss.
When a doctor is sharing your medical information to another doctor, wouldn't you want control over when/where that medical information can be viewed? Wouldn't you want it to self destruct?
You're describing some kind of science fiction fantasy, not DRM. DRM, as we currently know it today, means that neither your own doctor or the other doctor, is able to view the medical information at all, unless they pay some third party (not you) for some kind of tech license, and passes that cost on to you. And then the licensing body (not you) decides what can be done with the information.
If we had DRMed medical records, every patient would have to ask their doctor to store a second copy of all the records, outside of the broken DRM system, so that the information would actually be accessible when it's needed.
The DRM fantasy industry has had ample opportunity to come up with a non-stupid DRM scheme. They have a 100% failure rate: EVERY SINGLE TIME that DRM has been used, it has interfered with customers and providing incentive for them to cut off revenue, and there have been only a few (edge!) cases (DivX) where the DRM prevented misuses. It's all expense and never provides any benefit. Every time. If DRM failed only 99% of the time, maybe we could chalk it up to growing pains, but right now all evidence points to it being a complete scam.
Imagine an industry where, after a few decades and many many products, 100% of the time it turned out to be fraud. DRM is right up there with astrology. That's how seriously we should take it, and it is an outrage that our government is for it, rather than neutral toward it (the conservative, pre-DMCA approach) or outlawing it (the progressive approach).
Tablets, mobile phones and other minicomputers are sold with numerous restrictions embedded that cripple users freedom.
I, for one, was outraged that DEC crippled my PDP-11/34a like that!
..
Everyone, sometimes a word is taken away from us, by hostile forces, totally uncaring about the damage they cause by their disregard for truth and honor. Hacker was one of those words. The ruthless murder of a word taints the grief with excess anger. I don't know what to do about that, except that you must learn how to let it go. It's very hard.
But sometimes a word dies a natural death. Such is the case with minicomputer. Let the grieving begin, but let not bitterness dominate you. It had a good, fair run, not suddenly punctuated by some asshole.
Think of it as a public service announcement. This is a government's way of reminding everyone that their computer systems are broken, broken to the point of shocking negligence. When their left hand (law enforcement) does this, it just means you need to ask their right hand (regulators) what they're doing about the known serious problem.
If the government can successfully ask your phone to power up and query GPS and tell them where you are, anyone can ask your phone to tell them where you are. That means your phone has defective security.
Time to ask: who knew what, and when?
Whether the government abuses this flaw or not, you had the problem anyway. The government abuse makes it explicit that the problem exists, in a way that's understandable by laymen rather than just specialists.
Miniature cameras have been very accessible and affordable (much more affordable than Glass, in fact) for quite some time. Why are you punching the one guy in a ten, who openly displays his camera?
A person wearing GG is like the known teacher's pet. You know to not talk shit about Ms. Crabapple when the pet is around. It's the secret snitch who is the real problem. That's who tattles on you. And there you are, punching the pet.
It's not that there aren't real privacy concerns out there, but the way people are reacting to this product is just plain sad and exemplifies how amazingly stupid people are.
there is nothing stopping the industry from buying the work of art from itself.
Of course there's something stopping them: laziness, knowing they have it and need to renew it, and finding their copy to sell to themself. Believe it or not, back when copyright used renewal, some works didn't get renewed! Why? I don't know, but it really did happen.
If I wanted to sell myself a computer program that I wrote in 1986, I might actually have a hard time finding the media, or remembering to do it every 5 years. Just because it's a low bar, doesn't mean everyone can (or will) jump over it.
Since most digital images on the internet today are orphans - the metadata is missing or has been stripped by a large organization - millions of photographs and illustrations are swept into such schemes.
Sure, that happens to be true for most of the digital images on the Internet, but what about all the other images on the Internet?
Speaking of bits, Spanish colonial currency were "pieces of eight". "Shave and a Haircut, two bits" is a $0.25 cost. So, eight bits to a full unit... Coincidence for eight bits to a byte, or intentional?
And it's also how many tentacles a single whole-unit octopus has! And how many planets there are (since the loss of Pluto) in the whole solar system. And it's how many ounces are in a.. shit, is it a cup or a pound? I can never remember that one.
US Code Title 17 section 1201(a)(1)(A) says "No person shall circumvent a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title" and then goes on to commit other atrocities against the people and industry. Am I to understand that this court has just said that works copyrighted prior to 1972-02-15, would not count as "works protected under this title"?
Now we have Bloomberg saying that the Boston bombing will have to change the way we 'interpret' the Constitution. No, I'm not kidding, the Mayor of New York City really said these words
You introduce that as though it's some kind of extreme example, but don't you think it makes sense that people in government, SHOULD always be the main opposition to constitutional limits on government's power? If you ever find yourself looking to mayors, presidents, senators, councilors, etc to somehow use as inspiration or role models in upholding the constitition, then you're doing it wrong. The constitution is an expression of peoples' will to be protected from.. guess who? Mayors, presidents, senators, councilors, etc.
The person you're quoting doesn't actually have a say in the matter, except as a persuasive advocate. Out-advocate him by calling him on his bullshit, such as the bullshit about how we "live in a dangerous world." (Hey Bloomberg, compare longevity estimates now vs 1789, and then get back to me on who had serious security problems.)
At some point, you realize that the only time you ever communicate with that part of the Net, is when you're receiving an attack of some sort. Before long, "The Great Firewall of China" isn't going to be something installed by the Chinese government; it's something the rest of us will have done.
Hmm... maybe that was the government's devious plan to combat internal dissent and external influences, all along!
All this showed to me sadly was how quickly people are willing to give up their own freedoms because of fear.
I live a couple thousand miles away, so I wasn't there yadda yadda, but the impression I got is that it didn't have a damned thing to do with fear. It seemed like more of an anger or "let's help make it easier for the cops to nail the bastard" kind of thing.
Maybe you're right, though, that's all just media presentation. Any Bostonians wanna chime in with how petrified with fear you were/weren't?
Fear happens later, when policy changes are proposed.
I think he'll be back when the energy required to produce a bitcoin, costs slightly less than $1000.
As for how low it can go, I suspect the energy cost is a lower bound, and it'll never go below that. Ever.
As for exactly what that lower bound actually is (since I believe it should be the long-term stability) or when it'll be $1000, I can't figure it out. What does it cost to mine a bitcoin, preferably broken down by equipment and the most popular software running on that equipment? I once looked at the charts and graphs to try to figure that out. I came with the realization that it's not my bag, baby; mining isn't for me. There were a million businesses which make sense to people with more passion, interest and knowledge of the particular subject matter than I have. Bitcoin mining made it a million and one.;-)
I think looking at bitcoin in terms of dollar exchange rate isn't a good way to study it, though. Look at it in terms of KiloWatt-Hours or MegaJoules. Anything else is a distortion. Bitcoin is in a very immature volatile phase right now (hence all the news stories), but comparing it to a fiat currency just adds another random factor to the math. That can only make it harder to analyze. And whenever you show people that you're doing things the hard way, they're going to make certain assumptions about you...
most people aren't.. going to want to be seen wearing it AND it's not going to be socially acceptable.
Just like glasses, four-eyes.
If you can't have nerdgasms then you're not a nerd. Go home, frigid prude. Good grief, what a stupid reason to not want it. Judging it based on thinking it won't have good applications is reasonable, but for slashdotters to pretend they're suddenly fashion experts -- and also fashion seers -- shit, that isn't even arrogance; that's religion.
The main problem for this kind of display is its default lack of input device. Give it a "controller" of some kind (no, nobody wants voice), and it's every bit as useful as a phone or tablet [assuming it comes with a big-enough battery, the main failing of most mobile devices today]. Except that nobody wants to carry around another touch control, which is why the characters in Vinge novels have some kind of virtual keyboard and something is paying close attention to their fingers. We just gotta find that "something."
Maybe you keep your phone and just use that as the input. Someone'll clean up the idea.
Slashdot Mirror
Except it's not a bomb. So what's the FBI going to say in their call, "We're stealing your idea?"
Mine brought me a light saber! *grumble* Where's my beer?!
I agree (speaking from 2009) and (even here in 2013) still use an Atom(ION) HTPC. I love it, as far as hardware-I-already-have goes. But you need to check out the lowest-power Ivy Bridge and upcoming Haswells. They are seriously encroaching on what used to be Atom's power usage, except much much faster and without the need for any Nvidia chips or drivers. I am not kidding: think carefully and look at what's available, before you buy another Atom (or Bobcat) board. Atom is either a has-been in this area, or is fading fast. If Atom's going to continue, it has to invade ARM's market, because Haswell is invading Atom's market.
How does a "budding" pro, or a middle schooler, ever have a needs-to-read-PSDs legacy problem? Just dump it.
I totally get why some companies can't switch to anything else, but in your case there really might not be any barrier at all.
No, it can't. If the doctor wishes to nefariously leak the information, then the DRM will not stop him. Worst case, he can take a photograph of the screen (not that it's likely to require anything so extreme). He can read it aloud while another person (or robot) in the room listens.
If DRM actually solved some kind of problem, you could maybe make a case that the enormous costs of it were balanced by .. something. You could say that it's worth it to use force against doctors to require them to use crippled (yet strangely more expensive) computers which serve a higher agenda (no leakage) than the computer owner's agenda. But after a few decades of the scammers trying to come up with a working application, they still don't have even a demo!
This is like saying taxpayers ought to be forced to pay astrologers, before you have shown evidence that astrology works. Show the evidence that astrology might not be bullshit (you don't need to prove anything, just provide some evidence), and then we can have the cost/benefit debate. Right now, it's nothing-for-something, an objectively stupid tradeoff where breaking even is the best possible scenario, and most paths lead to loss.
You're describing some kind of science fiction fantasy, not DRM. DRM, as we currently know it today, means that neither your own doctor or the other doctor, is able to view the medical information at all, unless they pay some third party (not you) for some kind of tech license, and passes that cost on to you. And then the licensing body (not you) decides what can be done with the information.
If we had DRMed medical records, every patient would have to ask their doctor to store a second copy of all the records, outside of the broken DRM system, so that the information would actually be accessible when it's needed.
The DRM fantasy industry has had ample opportunity to come up with a non-stupid DRM scheme. They have a 100% failure rate: EVERY SINGLE TIME that DRM has been used, it has interfered with customers and providing incentive for them to cut off revenue, and there have been only a few (edge!) cases (DivX) where the DRM prevented misuses. It's all expense and never provides any benefit. Every time. If DRM failed only 99% of the time, maybe we could chalk it up to growing pains, but right now all evidence points to it being a complete scam.
Imagine an industry where, after a few decades and many many products, 100% of the time it turned out to be fraud. DRM is right up there with astrology. That's how seriously we should take it, and it is an outrage that our government is for it, rather than neutral toward it (the conservative, pre-DMCA approach) or outlawing it (the progressive approach).
I, for one, was outraged that DEC crippled my PDP-11/34a like that!
..
Everyone, sometimes a word is taken away from us, by hostile forces, totally uncaring about the damage they cause by their disregard for truth and honor. Hacker was one of those words. The ruthless murder of a word taints the grief with excess anger. I don't know what to do about that, except that you must learn how to let it go. It's very hard.
But sometimes a word dies a natural death. Such is the case with minicomputer. Let the grieving begin, but let not bitterness dominate you. It had a good, fair run, not suddenly punctuated by some asshole.
Think of it as a public service announcement. This is a government's way of reminding everyone that their computer systems are broken, broken to the point of shocking negligence. When their left hand (law enforcement) does this, it just means you need to ask their right hand (regulators) what they're doing about the known serious problem.
If the government can successfully ask your phone to power up and query GPS and tell them where you are, anyone can ask your phone to tell them where you are. That means your phone has defective security.
Time to ask: who knew what, and when?
Whether the government abuses this flaw or not, you had the problem anyway. The government abuse makes it explicit that the problem exists, in a way that's understandable by laymen rather than just specialists.
Miniature cameras have been very accessible and affordable (much more affordable than Glass, in fact) for quite some time. Why are you punching the one guy in a ten, who openly displays his camera?
A person wearing GG is like the known teacher's pet. You know to not talk shit about Ms. Crabapple when the pet is around. It's the secret snitch who is the real problem. That's who tattles on you. And there you are, punching the pet.
It's not that there aren't real privacy concerns out there, but the way people are reacting to this product is just plain sad and exemplifies how amazingly stupid people are.
Of course there's something stopping them: laziness, knowing they have it and need to renew it, and finding their copy to sell to themself. Believe it or not, back when copyright used renewal, some works didn't get renewed! Why? I don't know, but it really did happen.
If I wanted to sell myself a computer program that I wrote in 1986, I might actually have a hard time finding the media, or remembering to do it every 5 years. Just because it's a low bar, doesn't mean everyone can (or will) jump over it.
Sure, that happens to be true for most of the digital images on the Internet, but what about all the other images on the Internet?
My JFS anecdotes are way happier than my XFS anecdotes. I realize that's not worth much, but a person can't just ignore their experiences.
Maybe one way to look at it, is that if the people don't deploy cameras, then the government will.
And it's also how many tentacles a single whole-unit octopus has! And how many planets there are (since the loss of Pluto) in the whole solar system. And it's how many ounces are in a .. shit, is it a cup or a pound? I can never remember that one.
US Code Title 17 section 1201(a)(1)(A) says "No person shall circumvent a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title" and then goes on to commit other atrocities against the people and industry. Am I to understand that this court has just said that works copyrighted prior to 1972-02-15, would not count as "works protected under this title"?
Aren't you worried about getting the deaf penalty for using their network racehorses to trade TV shows containing sax and violins?
Oh.
Never mind.
Speaking as someone who, at any moment, only has to hit up arrow a couple times to see an "rsync .. -e ssh ..." line, I'm telling ya: it's all the same.
Sorry, Umuri, my thread-fu is weak. Would delete and repost in the right place if I could.
You introduce that as though it's some kind of extreme example, but don't you think it makes sense that people in government, SHOULD always be the main opposition to constitutional limits on government's power? If you ever find yourself looking to mayors, presidents, senators, councilors, etc to somehow use as inspiration or role models in upholding the constitition, then you're doing it wrong. The constitution is an expression of peoples' will to be protected from .. guess who? Mayors, presidents, senators, councilors, etc.
The person you're quoting doesn't actually have a say in the matter, except as a persuasive advocate. Out-advocate him by calling him on his bullshit, such as the bullshit about how we "live in a dangerous world." (Hey Bloomberg, compare longevity estimates now vs 1789, and then get back to me on who had serious security problems.)
[repeat dozens of times per day]
At some point, you realize that the only time you ever communicate with that part of the Net, is when you're receiving an attack of some sort. Before long, "The Great Firewall of China" isn't going to be something installed by the Chinese government; it's something the rest of us will have done.
Hmm... maybe that was the government's devious plan to combat internal dissent and external influences, all along!
No, that's the groupee.
I live a couple thousand miles away, so I wasn't there yadda yadda, but the impression I got is that it didn't have a damned thing to do with fear. It seemed like more of an anger or "let's help make it easier for the cops to nail the bastard" kind of thing.
Maybe you're right, though, that's all just media presentation. Any Bostonians wanna chime in with how petrified with fear you were/weren't?
Fear happens later, when policy changes are proposed.
WTF?
I think he'll be back when the energy required to produce a bitcoin, costs slightly less than $1000.
As for how low it can go, I suspect the energy cost is a lower bound, and it'll never go below that. Ever.
As for exactly what that lower bound actually is (since I believe it should be the long-term stability) or when it'll be $1000, I can't figure it out. What does it cost to mine a bitcoin, preferably broken down by equipment and the most popular software running on that equipment? I once looked at the charts and graphs to try to figure that out. I came with the realization that it's not my bag, baby; mining isn't for me. There were a million businesses which make sense to people with more passion, interest and knowledge of the particular subject matter than I have. Bitcoin mining made it a million and one. ;-)
I think looking at bitcoin in terms of dollar exchange rate isn't a good way to study it, though. Look at it in terms of KiloWatt-Hours or MegaJoules. Anything else is a distortion. Bitcoin is in a very immature volatile phase right now (hence all the news stories), but comparing it to a fiat currency just adds another random factor to the math. That can only make it harder to analyze. And whenever you show people that you're doing things the hard way, they're going to make certain assumptions about you...
Just like glasses, four-eyes.
If you can't have nerdgasms then you're not a nerd. Go home, frigid prude. Good grief, what a stupid reason to not want it. Judging it based on thinking it won't have good applications is reasonable, but for slashdotters to pretend they're suddenly fashion experts -- and also fashion seers -- shit, that isn't even arrogance; that's religion.
The main problem for this kind of display is its default lack of input device. Give it a "controller" of some kind (no, nobody wants voice), and it's every bit as useful as a phone or tablet [assuming it comes with a big-enough battery, the main failing of most mobile devices today]. Except that nobody wants to carry around another touch control, which is why the characters in Vinge novels have some kind of virtual keyboard and something is paying close attention to their fingers. We just gotta find that "something."
Maybe you keep your phone and just use that as the input. Someone'll clean up the idea.