Actually, in their minds, it will make the pirates more willing to kill. After all, if people will potentially shooting at you, you're more likely to shoot first if someone looks funny. Frankly, I'm a fan of the convoy idea. Heck. One destroyer could protect a dozen commercial vessels, I'm sure.
What's funnier is, I'm Canadian. Our government isn't "Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." It's "Life, liberty, and good government." We get technically less say in our government than Americans do (for instance, we don't elect the leader, just the party). And it's usually a case of "like it or lump it." I'm always amazed at the antipathy Americans can show to their own government though. Imagine what the responses on this story would be if instead of going through the government, they'd just created this as a co-op off the bat and TWC tried to get it killed off through legislation? It'd be outrage across the board. None of this "That's capitalism for you" stuff.
http://it.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=09/04/22/1815226
Take a look. There's a shit-ton of people going "Yeah, but you need root to do it." That exploit's in the wild, not just proof-of-concept. And people are still discounting it. That makes my argument just a bit beyond "straw man." I was pointing out that people will hold up any system as more or less secure than another, but it all comes down to the users, not the OS.
As for the nay-sayers? Look at the first comment on the article. Someone already saying "Look! A security vulnerabilty!"
What I find interesting is the people who are trumpeting this as a horrible security vulnerability, despite needing physical access to the machine, are likely to be the same ones who discounted the Intel cache overflow exploit being easier to execute on Linux than other systems, but you need to run as root on Linux as "If someone has root, it's your fault anyways." So what makes this one more egregious in their eyes? You can run root over a network. That seems worse than needing physical access to the machine, imo. It just goes to show, no OS is completely safe, no matter what, and user education is the key. Not security through obscurity.
Yes. How strange that they system would end up being almost exactly how it is now. Only with potentially better effects as there would be no perks to deciding one way or the other.
Why not? Governments are "For the people, by the people" aren't they? So if the people all say "Hey, we want this. Do it." to their government, and the government does it, and well, more power to them. After all, if the private entities failed to react to customer concerns on such an epic scale, why should we be stuck with them? Aren't private companies supposed to be better by virtue of being able to respond to the changing market more quickly than public institutions? If they need to resort to legislation to keep in business, they're doomed. It's just a matter of sooner or later.
It won't suffice for people for whom having the latest and greatest is a status thing; OTOH, I'm using a several year old Athlon with a fairly basic GPU (one of Nvidia's integrated products, not a dedicated board) for our home's gaming PC and its fine for most games, even the newer ones I play (e.g., Empire: Total War.)
I'm running a quad-core, and it's barely good enough to run Supreme Commander: Forged Alliance, myself vs. 7 AI opponents. It hits 100% usage about 15 minutes in to the match. That's 100% on all 4 cores. The game's relatively old by this point. Having it on a machine with a slower processor, or with fewer cores would be a bitch to play in that scenario. So no, having the latest and greatest isn't just a status thing. It's to make the game run in an acceptable manner. Even during replays, there's a horrific amount of slowdown, so if there's something near the end of a long match I'd like to check, I better sit in for a long time, because my system still won't burn through it at high speeds. And then there's Crysis: Warhead. Not as killer on machines as the original, but it's a better game, imo, and playing it on even medium settings takes a fairly new machine. Just because you can run your games of choice on an older system doesn't mean we're all tech-whores when we get newer components. Sometimes, it's needed.
Technically, as yeast is prohibited by that, no. If you mean the more current Biergesetz, then possibly, though GM foods are quite touchy in some areas.
Isn't that always been the way, though? Society focusses on one threat to the point where it becomes blind to others, and is unable to recover properly when that weak spot is uncovered and exploited?
As has been pointed out, IBM has equivilent products that could stand better from increased focus on development rather than trying to obtain someone else's IP and attempt to integrate them in some fashion, since we all know users would want future compatability once it's owned by the same company. Oracle doesn't have anything directly competative with Sun's products, so a product integration wouldn't be quite such a thing.
But "good enough" computing won't suffice for gamers. They're usually the ones who drive the cycle of upgrading usually anyways. Most gamers' systems are ridiculously overpowered (mine included), and will continue to be so, well after games have reached the point to be indistiguishable from reality. They're always going to want to push that just one FPS more, that extra level of AA, etc. PC gaming enthusiasts won't go away, and as more generations grow up with computers, they'll become more adept at using them, meaning they're going to be doing more, pushing systems harder. Frankly, most PCs from the past might very well have been good enough - if they'd had the RAM available to run a Web Client, Email Client, IM client, video player, casual game, and random other widgets and programs in the background without slowing to a crawl. Think that's excessive? I've seen it, multiple times. So imagine kids wanting to do even more than that all at once. Ignore the Windows vs. Linux argument. The core of it is, even if people got to the point where they all flipped over to Linux, the "good enough" computers of today just wouldn't be acceptable for the kids of tomorrow. However, it will also be like the seniors of today using their large cabinet TVs that are 20+ years old. Once someone today finds a computer that will let them do all their stuff that they need, they'll stick with it, or something similar for as long as they can. TFA is just an author-wank.
You misunderstand. It's not the video. It's the song. So cut in after the first verse, even right at the start of the song, and it's likely to pass inspection.
So copyrights only apply to companies you've personally heard of and it's a song you'd buy? That's pretty stupid.
I believe the point wasn't the significance of the company filing the complaint, but the content of the video being removed. If a video has a significant contribution, a larger company might be more willing to let a small infringement slide on the basis of good will, since they have other sources of income. A small company would be more likely to be zealous, since even small infringements represent a significant portion of potential income. Of course, that paradigm hardly applies in all situations, probably not even most. However, there is a point there to be made.
If someone has something significant to contribute, should an allowance be made for small infringements made in pursuit of that contribution? How many would be silenced for fear of stumbling afoul of copyright issues? How many would be too many? If I'm making a free video, and am earning absolutely nothing from having made it, should I have to pay for the use of a song that provides the perfect counter-point to what I'm saying?
Then again, if I'm making any kind of revenue from it, even ads on the page, yes, you should have to pay for the right to use it.
Aww, poor IBM. This is why you don't withdraw bids, you ask for counter-offers. Otherwise, you get blindsided by someone willing to do some give and take. This is probably the best outcome though. Microsoft didn't need another addition to their roster of stuff they've co-opted, and IBM should be doing more development instead of acquisitions.
I think for a society to properly function, we should care about each other's problems. However, the answer is definitely not some random organization deciding what's best for everyone. If the solution is going to be applied across the board, it should be fully public and transparent, like any government public agency. If they wanna be secretive, they can be a private agency, and people can decide on an individual basis to avail themselves of their services. Right now, the IWF has managed to get the best of both worlds. All the obfuscation of a private firm, with the far-reaching arms of a government organization. There really needs to be some sort of change.
Slashdot Mirror
Actually, in their minds, it will make the pirates more willing to kill. After all, if people will potentially shooting at you, you're more likely to shoot first if someone looks funny. Frankly, I'm a fan of the convoy idea. Heck. One destroyer could protect a dozen commercial vessels, I'm sure.
What's funnier is, I'm Canadian. Our government isn't "Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." It's "Life, liberty, and good government." We get technically less say in our government than Americans do (for instance, we don't elect the leader, just the party). And it's usually a case of "like it or lump it." I'm always amazed at the antipathy Americans can show to their own government though. Imagine what the responses on this story would be if instead of going through the government, they'd just created this as a co-op off the bat and TWC tried to get it killed off through legislation? It'd be outrage across the board. None of this "That's capitalism for you" stuff.
http://it.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=09/04/22/1815226 Take a look. There's a shit-ton of people going "Yeah, but you need root to do it." That exploit's in the wild, not just proof-of-concept. And people are still discounting it. That makes my argument just a bit beyond "straw man." I was pointing out that people will hold up any system as more or less secure than another, but it all comes down to the users, not the OS.
As for the nay-sayers? Look at the first comment on the article. Someone already saying "Look! A security vulnerabilty!"
What I find interesting is the people who are trumpeting this as a horrible security vulnerability, despite needing physical access to the machine, are likely to be the same ones who discounted the Intel cache overflow exploit being easier to execute on Linux than other systems, but you need to run as root on Linux as "If someone has root, it's your fault anyways." So what makes this one more egregious in their eyes? You can run root over a network. That seems worse than needing physical access to the machine, imo. It just goes to show, no OS is completely safe, no matter what, and user education is the key. Not security through obscurity.
It's already been shown they charge more for a comparable level of service, or less service for a similar price.
Yes. How strange that they system would end up being almost exactly how it is now. Only with potentially better effects as there would be no perks to deciding one way or the other.
Why not? Governments are "For the people, by the people" aren't they? So if the people all say "Hey, we want this. Do it." to their government, and the government does it, and well, more power to them. After all, if the private entities failed to react to customer concerns on such an epic scale, why should we be stuck with them? Aren't private companies supposed to be better by virtue of being able to respond to the changing market more quickly than public institutions? If they need to resort to legislation to keep in business, they're doomed. It's just a matter of sooner or later.
It won't suffice for people for whom having the latest and greatest is a status thing; OTOH, I'm using a several year old Athlon with a fairly basic GPU (one of Nvidia's integrated products, not a dedicated board) for our home's gaming PC and its fine for most games, even the newer ones I play (e.g., Empire: Total War.)
I'm running a quad-core, and it's barely good enough to run Supreme Commander: Forged Alliance, myself vs. 7 AI opponents. It hits 100% usage about 15 minutes in to the match. That's 100% on all 4 cores. The game's relatively old by this point. Having it on a machine with a slower processor, or with fewer cores would be a bitch to play in that scenario. So no, having the latest and greatest isn't just a status thing. It's to make the game run in an acceptable manner. Even during replays, there's a horrific amount of slowdown, so if there's something near the end of a long match I'd like to check, I better sit in for a long time, because my system still won't burn through it at high speeds. And then there's Crysis: Warhead. Not as killer on machines as the original, but it's a better game, imo, and playing it on even medium settings takes a fairly new machine. Just because you can run your games of choice on an older system doesn't mean we're all tech-whores when we get newer components. Sometimes, it's needed.
Technically, as yeast is prohibited by that, no. If you mean the more current Biergesetz, then possibly, though GM foods are quite touchy in some areas.
Isn't that always been the way, though? Society focusses on one threat to the point where it becomes blind to others, and is unable to recover properly when that weak spot is uncovered and exploited?
As has been pointed out, IBM has equivilent products that could stand better from increased focus on development rather than trying to obtain someone else's IP and attempt to integrate them in some fashion, since we all know users would want future compatability once it's owned by the same company. Oracle doesn't have anything directly competative with Sun's products, so a product integration wouldn't be quite such a thing.
But "good enough" computing won't suffice for gamers. They're usually the ones who drive the cycle of upgrading usually anyways. Most gamers' systems are ridiculously overpowered (mine included), and will continue to be so, well after games have reached the point to be indistiguishable from reality. They're always going to want to push that just one FPS more, that extra level of AA, etc. PC gaming enthusiasts won't go away, and as more generations grow up with computers, they'll become more adept at using them, meaning they're going to be doing more, pushing systems harder. Frankly, most PCs from the past might very well have been good enough - if they'd had the RAM available to run a Web Client, Email Client, IM client, video player, casual game, and random other widgets and programs in the background without slowing to a crawl. Think that's excessive? I've seen it, multiple times. So imagine kids wanting to do even more than that all at once. Ignore the Windows vs. Linux argument. The core of it is, even if people got to the point where they all flipped over to Linux, the "good enough" computers of today just wouldn't be acceptable for the kids of tomorrow. However, it will also be like the seniors of today using their large cabinet TVs that are 20+ years old. Once someone today finds a computer that will let them do all their stuff that they need, they'll stick with it, or something similar for as long as they can. TFA is just an author-wank.
You misunderstand. It's not the video. It's the song. So cut in after the first verse, even right at the start of the song, and it's likely to pass inspection.
So copyrights only apply to companies you've personally heard of and it's a song you'd buy? That's pretty stupid.
I believe the point wasn't the significance of the company filing the complaint, but the content of the video being removed. If a video has a significant contribution, a larger company might be more willing to let a small infringement slide on the basis of good will, since they have other sources of income. A small company would be more likely to be zealous, since even small infringements represent a significant portion of potential income. Of course, that paradigm hardly applies in all situations, probably not even most. However, there is a point there to be made. If someone has something significant to contribute, should an allowance be made for small infringements made in pursuit of that contribution? How many would be silenced for fear of stumbling afoul of copyright issues? How many would be too many? If I'm making a free video, and am earning absolutely nothing from having made it, should I have to pay for the use of a song that provides the perfect counter-point to what I'm saying? Then again, if I'm making any kind of revenue from it, even ads on the page, yes, you should have to pay for the right to use it.
Aww, poor IBM. This is why you don't withdraw bids, you ask for counter-offers. Otherwise, you get blindsided by someone willing to do some give and take. This is probably the best outcome though. Microsoft didn't need another addition to their roster of stuff they've co-opted, and IBM should be doing more development instead of acquisitions.
I think for a society to properly function, we should care about each other's problems. However, the answer is definitely not some random organization deciding what's best for everyone. If the solution is going to be applied across the board, it should be fully public and transparent, like any government public agency. If they wanna be secretive, they can be a private agency, and people can decide on an individual basis to avail themselves of their services. Right now, the IWF has managed to get the best of both worlds. All the obfuscation of a private firm, with the far-reaching arms of a government organization. There really needs to be some sort of change.