Getting fingerprinted is typical in the banking industry. Some banks just require this of all employees while others only require it of people who touch money or deal with the financial numbers. If a programmer would be anywhere near the software involved in manipulating the numbers in accounts, they are "touching the money" enough to be fingerprinted.
If you don't want to be fingerprinted, don't apply for a job in banking, or in a few other areas like law enforcement, government intelligence related jobs, education below the college level, etc.
It has always been standard that for arranging things like roommates, dates, marriages, etc, that being able to not only select the gender and sexual orientation of the other party or parties is normal. It's not even considered discrimination. Remember, this is for a roommate arrangement (very personal). It is not for a landlord/tenant relation (strictly business).
I would also suggest that selecting a roommate, date, or lifelong partner based on their religious belief (or lack thereof) is equally personal and not considered discrimination. Maybe... just maybe... race might be going too far for roommates (but not for dates and marriages).
And we do not need any such law; never did; never will.
Of course your stuff will work. It's not DRM encumbered. It's basically already in the clear if it works. What DRM will do is disable various system facilities during the playback of DRM encumbered context. For example, if you are watching a DRM'd video, the ability to access the video card buffers directly will be disabled. And for high definition playback, it will work only with a video card that securely supports transfers it to a compliant monitor (e.g. via HDMI) preventing you from even ripping it from the video cable.
The concern with that is that it will just encourage the content industry to lock everything down, giving them the eventual ability to charge everyone incrementally (e.g. pay per view) for everything. In one sense that is good because you can buy ONE view relatively cheaply 9and a lot of people want that for movies). But it is bad because it will up the price on buying an "owned" copy that you can play as often as you want forever. More of the latter group will shift to illegal downloads.
And none of this will really impact piracy much. As soon as someone manages to successfully rip a decent quality copy somewhere, that copy (not DRM encumbered) will multiply in the video sharing networks (and being digital won't suffer the generations degrading that was the issue for the analog piracy in the 1970's to 1980's). There are some people that simply glamor in having "the baadest video library on the block" and will steal to get it because the cost of legally owning 100,000 videos aty the rates they will end up charging for a permanent multi-play copy is outside the range of 99.999% of people.
The trouble with DRM in Vista is that it may be slowing down things because of all the extra code doing all the checks and stuff. But that's really a minor not with Vista compared to some of the issues like just being too bloated to operate on older computers that still have plenty of life and can perhaps run XP or Ubuntu.
I won't run Vista anytime soon because I really do just about everything on Linux and have for years. What little I do on Windows can be done by booting my legal copy of Windows 98 about once a year. Maybe I'll buy a copy of XP during the next year or so do be able to handle some newer computer I might get. But other than that, it's Gentoo, Slackware, Ubuntu, OpenBSD, and Solaris for me.
Why doesn't Rebekka just sue OnlyDreemin? They are legally liable for what they sell. If they can't produce the people who sold them the prints, that's their fault for doing business with shady people. Did they bother to ask the people for licensing information? I find it hard to believe that the art world doesn't have a way to catalog and look up sellers of art with licenses or anything like that. You don't just transfer (£3000.00) in cash or to an anonymous Paypal account. Come on, hold someone responsible, don't get on Flickr and start a smear campaign toward them!
Why don't you loan her the money that such a legal action in another country would require up front?
It is still not restored. How long does it take for them to do that? Or is their own internal administrative management panel some form of menu hell that they can't figure out how to navigate to find the OOPS button?
Not true. The U.S. patent system is based on a "first to invent" doctrine, not "first to file."
That may be the theory behind the patent system, but it is not how it behaves in practice. The high cost to prove a patent owner was not the first inventor is prohibitively high for most people to pursue, especially against a corporation.
Additionally, most patents (particularly in software) are issued for things that are not genuine innovations. That is, there is no net benefit to the country for these patents because what was created would have been created anyway.
The real issue with the patent system today is that it serves less as a means to encourage innovation, and more as a means for corporations to stifle competition. I am not proposing to eliminate the patent system, nor am I proposing to prohibit patents on software. Instead, I believe the patent system needs to be fixed in a way that requires every patent issued to show that there is genuine innovation that would not have come about, at least in a timely manner, without the opportunity of exclusivity driving the investment in the invention, or the coincidental intellectual creation beyond the routine.
All the cell phone plans suck. First of all, I don't want a phone from the service provider for various reasons (avoiding lock-in, ability to change when I want, getting one to my liking). I'll buy my own phone and then choose a provider. Second, I don't want term plans. I want to just sign up, get competitive per minute rates, and pay month-to-month. I don't even mind pre-paying. But the pre-pay services now are overly expensive (it's a plan intended to rape the lower economic classes).
As soon as a cell phone service provider figures out they will be very competitive with a "plan" that provides the lowest, or near lowest, per minute rates, reliable coverage, and no term period for those who "bring your own phone" (BYOP), then I'd be ready to cut the cord. In fact, I may well just cut the cord and not get any cell service at all since everyone who does call I don't want to talk to or listen to anyway.
The actions of this government and administration more resemble those of Fascism than of Communism, although the subject of this article would certainly be exercised by either, as both are characterized by totalitarianism.
"Fascism may be defined as a form of political behavior marked by obsessive preoccupation with community decline, humiliation, or victim-hood and by compensatory cults of unity, energy, and purity, in which a mass-based party of committed nationalist militants, working in uneasy but effective collaboration with traditional elites, abandons democratic liberties and pursues with redemptive violence and without ethical or legal restraints goals of internal cleansing and external expansion."... Robert Paxton
Estonian (Eesti) and Finnish (Suomi) are close enough for mutual understanding to work. Estonians watched Helsinki TV for real news and programming when Soviet Russia occupied their country (and probably still do, but now via cable legally). But the languages are not as close as Swedish, Norwegian, and Danish are to each other.
Suppose you have some DRM protected content which you can listen to or watch on your Windows computer. But if you do manage to copy that content over to your USB Flash drive and access it on another computer, like at work, you can't (if DRM is doing what the content owners expect of it). I suspect what the DRM in this new technology will be doing is allowing you to do just that... listen to or watch your content on the computer you take your USB flash drive to. But it will most likely only let you listen/watch in just one place at a time. And that means to be able to listen/watch on your home computer again, you have to bring the USB flash drive back, and either leave the content on it, or "move" it back to the computer spin drive.
So maybe the existance of DRM in this isn't really making it any more evil... unless you lose the USB flash drive.
The real reason they are claiming that not using their DRM is a circumvention mechanism is because their whole technology depends on their software being present in order for the content to remain protected. If the software is absent, the content can be accessed in the clear. Apparently it is some kind of watermarking system that would trigger the software to check your authorization to access the content.
So, is their technology that dumb? Or just their lawyer?
And in other news, Linux developers have threatened to sue MRT and BlueBeat.com for failing to open source the X1 SeCure Recording Control on the grounds that failing to provide a GPL version suitable for Linux is an act of circumventing the DMCA.
Depricating active mode would be more usable over firewalls. But for many reasons, it's still time for FTP to go. I'd replace it with something that is fully secure.
I think that because that is what you actually said. If you meant something different you should have said something different.
So you are taking things out of context. How does "... a new protocol that conducts everything over a single TCP connection or a single SCTP session is where we need to go" indicate that the single TCP connection or single SCTP session (I meant to say association) spans multiple instances. A valid statement is "SSH conducts everything it does over one TCP connection". It can do quite a lot over that one TCP connection. It can forward other port traffic, too. But, there is nothing in that statement that says all instances of SSH jointly share the same connection, or that separate instances of SSH cannot have separate connections.
Of course I did not explicitly say that separate instances get separate connections. I shouldn't have to for the Slashdot audience. If you know protocols reasonably well, you should understand the context.
As for not spanning multiple ports, that doesn't even have to apply. A protocol could be designed that would make related connections for the same instance but do so over the same port number on one end (as long as one of them is different it makes the the connection distinct even if both IP addresses are the same).
End of context lesson. If you can't grok it by now, it's a waste of my time going any further with you. I may have the time to come back and read a final reply, but I won't spend the time to make another reply of my own.
I'll continue to work on my new protocol for file exchanging that, among other things, have all that is needed for replacing FTP, HTTP, and RSYNC (and maybe even NFS), do so securely, work on top of your choice of SCTP (the design target) or TCP (legacy support mode with emulated streams), and have no limits on size of file or length of names (but it will include graceful handling of administrative policy limits).
Actually, no, SFTP is not what I am looking for. Sure, it would work over a stateless firewall. But it's an ugly hack that doesn't lend itself to anonymous file serving. A new clean protocol is need to replace FTP (and it could replace HTTP, too).
If the issue is tracking some random return port, sure, UDP is a problem with firewalls that requires statefulness to workaround. UDP is broken, too. SCTP can do a lot of what UDP wins over TCP on. Things like DNS should be handled separately, anyway (e.g. the firewall does DNS caching and lookup serving).
You seem to think that this means merging all the protocols into one joint TCP connection. No... each individual activity will be it's own one connection, which is what most protocols already do. It's the broken ones like FTP that try to do 2 or more concurrent connections at the same time in some related way, especially, going back in the reverse direction, for one activity that need to be fixed so they use just one. Thus there would be one connection for each instance of running a download session, just as there is one connection for each instance of an HTTP request, even though you can still see many such connections of each at any given time on a very busy system.
... who wouldn't want the government to be reimbursed for resources wasted during a hoax?
Me!!
Certainly not in the case of Boston. Incompetency abounds there. Paying them when they act incompetent sends the wrong message. Instead, when a case like this happens, it's the stupid city officials that should reimburse the taxpayers.
"Service Temporarily Unavailable The server is temporarily unable to service your request due to maintenance downtime or capacity problems. Please try again later."
I'm worried that someone will try to claim prior art though...:S
Nah... slashdot effect... they just ran out of numbers:-)
Slashdot Mirror
Getting fingerprinted is typical in the banking industry. Some banks just require this of all employees while others only require it of people who touch money or deal with the financial numbers. If a programmer would be anywhere near the software involved in manipulating the numbers in accounts, they are "touching the money" enough to be fingerprinted.
If you don't want to be fingerprinted, don't apply for a job in banking, or in a few other areas like law enforcement, government intelligence related jobs, education below the college level, etc.
It has always been standard that for arranging things like roommates, dates, marriages, etc, that being able to not only select the gender and sexual orientation of the other party or parties is normal. It's not even considered discrimination. Remember, this is for a roommate arrangement (very personal). It is not for a landlord/tenant relation (strictly business).
I would also suggest that selecting a roommate, date, or lifelong partner based on their religious belief (or lack thereof) is equally personal and not considered discrimination. Maybe ... just maybe ... race might be going too far for roommates (but not for dates and marriages).
And we do not need any such law; never did; never will.
Of course your stuff will work. It's not DRM encumbered. It's basically already in the clear if it works. What DRM will do is disable various system facilities during the playback of DRM encumbered context. For example, if you are watching a DRM'd video, the ability to access the video card buffers directly will be disabled. And for high definition playback, it will work only with a video card that securely supports transfers it to a compliant monitor (e.g. via HDMI) preventing you from even ripping it from the video cable.
The concern with that is that it will just encourage the content industry to lock everything down, giving them the eventual ability to charge everyone incrementally (e.g. pay per view) for everything. In one sense that is good because you can buy ONE view relatively cheaply 9and a lot of people want that for movies). But it is bad because it will up the price on buying an "owned" copy that you can play as often as you want forever. More of the latter group will shift to illegal downloads.
And none of this will really impact piracy much. As soon as someone manages to successfully rip a decent quality copy somewhere, that copy (not DRM encumbered) will multiply in the video sharing networks (and being digital won't suffer the generations degrading that was the issue for the analog piracy in the 1970's to 1980's). There are some people that simply glamor in having "the baadest video library on the block" and will steal to get it because the cost of legally owning 100,000 videos aty the rates they will end up charging for a permanent multi-play copy is outside the range of 99.999% of people.
The trouble with DRM in Vista is that it may be slowing down things because of all the extra code doing all the checks and stuff. But that's really a minor not with Vista compared to some of the issues like just being too bloated to operate on older computers that still have plenty of life and can perhaps run XP or Ubuntu.
I won't run Vista anytime soon because I really do just about everything on Linux and have for years. What little I do on Windows can be done by booting my legal copy of Windows 98 about once a year. Maybe I'll buy a copy of XP during the next year or so do be able to handle some newer computer I might get. But other than that, it's Gentoo, Slackware, Ubuntu, OpenBSD, and Solaris for me.
Why don't you loan her the money that such a legal action in another country would require up front?
It is still not restored. How long does it take for them to do that? Or is their own internal administrative management panel some form of menu hell that they can't figure out how to navigate to find the OOPS button?
That may be the theory behind the patent system, but it is not how it behaves in practice. The high cost to prove a patent owner was not the first inventor is prohibitively high for most people to pursue, especially against a corporation.
Additionally, most patents (particularly in software) are issued for things that are not genuine innovations. That is, there is no net benefit to the country for these patents because what was created would have been created anyway.
The real issue with the patent system today is that it serves less as a means to encourage innovation, and more as a means for corporations to stifle competition. I am not proposing to eliminate the patent system, nor am I proposing to prohibit patents on software. Instead, I believe the patent system needs to be fixed in a way that requires every patent issued to show that there is genuine innovation that would not have come about, at least in a timely manner, without the opportunity of exclusivity driving the investment in the invention, or the coincidental intellectual creation beyond the routine.
All the cell phone plans suck. First of all, I don't want a phone from the service provider for various reasons (avoiding lock-in, ability to change when I want, getting one to my liking). I'll buy my own phone and then choose a provider. Second, I don't want term plans. I want to just sign up, get competitive per minute rates, and pay month-to-month. I don't even mind pre-paying. But the pre-pay services now are overly expensive (it's a plan intended to rape the lower economic classes).
As soon as a cell phone service provider figures out they will be very competitive with a "plan" that provides the lowest, or near lowest, per minute rates, reliable coverage, and no term period for those who "bring your own phone" (BYOP), then I'd be ready to cut the cord. In fact, I may well just cut the cord and not get any cell service at all since everyone who does call I don't want to talk to or listen to anyway.
The actions of this government and administration more resemble those of Fascism than of Communism, although the subject of this article would certainly be exercised by either, as both are characterized by totalitarianism.
"Fascism may be defined as a form of political behavior marked by obsessive preoccupation with community decline, humiliation, or victim-hood and by compensatory cults of unity, energy, and purity, in which a mass-based party of committed nationalist militants, working in uneasy but effective collaboration with traditional elites, abandons democratic liberties and pursues with redemptive violence and without ethical or legal restraints goals of internal cleansing and external expansion." ... Robert Paxton
You can find out where Estonia is here.
Estonian (Eesti) and Finnish (Suomi) are close enough for mutual understanding to work. Estonians watched Helsinki TV for real news and programming when Soviet Russia occupied their country (and probably still do, but now via cable legally). But the languages are not as close as Swedish, Norwegian, and Danish are to each other.
Communism is the end of capitalism. Nazism embraces capitalism and uses it for it's own evil designs.
Suppose you have some DRM protected content which you can listen to or watch on your Windows computer. But if you do manage to copy that content over to your USB Flash drive and access it on another computer, like at work, you can't (if DRM is doing what the content owners expect of it). I suspect what the DRM in this new technology will be doing is allowing you to do just that ... listen to or watch your content on the computer you take your USB flash drive to. But it will most likely only let you listen/watch in just one place at a time. And that means to be able to listen/watch on your home computer again, you have to bring the USB flash drive back, and either leave the content on it, or "move" it back to the computer spin drive.
So maybe the existance of DRM in this isn't really making it any more evil ... unless you lose the USB flash drive.
It's like any sales pitch. If they have to tell you it's trusted, it obviously must not be.
Actually, this is a case of capitalism degenerating into nazism.
The real reason they are claiming that not using their DRM is a circumvention mechanism is because their whole technology depends on their software being present in order for the content to remain protected. If the software is absent, the content can be accessed in the clear. Apparently it is some kind of watermarking system that would trigger the software to check your authorization to access the content.
So, is their technology that dumb? Or just their lawyer?
And in other news, Linux developers have threatened to sue MRT and BlueBeat.com for failing to open source the X1 SeCure Recording Control on the grounds that failing to provide a GPL version suitable for Linux is an act of circumventing the DMCA.
Depricating active mode would be more usable over firewalls. But for many reasons, it's still time for FTP to go. I'd replace it with something that is fully secure.
So you are taking things out of context. How does "... a new protocol that conducts everything over a single TCP connection or a single SCTP session is where we need to go" indicate that the single TCP connection or single SCTP session (I meant to say association) spans multiple instances. A valid statement is "SSH conducts everything it does over one TCP connection". It can do quite a lot over that one TCP connection. It can forward other port traffic, too. But, there is nothing in that statement that says all instances of SSH jointly share the same connection, or that separate instances of SSH cannot have separate connections.
Of course I did not explicitly say that separate instances get separate connections. I shouldn't have to for the Slashdot audience. If you know protocols reasonably well, you should understand the context.
As for not spanning multiple ports, that doesn't even have to apply. A protocol could be designed that would make related connections for the same instance but do so over the same port number on one end (as long as one of them is different it makes the the connection distinct even if both IP addresses are the same).
End of context lesson. If you can't grok it by now, it's a waste of my time going any further with you. I may have the time to come back and read a final reply, but I won't spend the time to make another reply of my own.
I'll continue to work on my new protocol for file exchanging that, among other things, have all that is needed for replacing FTP, HTTP, and RSYNC (and maybe even NFS), do so securely, work on top of your choice of SCTP (the design target) or TCP (legacy support mode with emulated streams), and have no limits on size of file or length of names (but it will include graceful handling of administrative policy limits).
Actually, no, SFTP is not what I am looking for. Sure, it would work over a stateless firewall. But it's an ugly hack that doesn't lend itself to anonymous file serving. A new clean protocol is need to replace FTP (and it could replace HTTP, too).
If the issue is tracking some random return port, sure, UDP is a problem with firewalls that requires statefulness to workaround. UDP is broken, too. SCTP can do a lot of what UDP wins over TCP on. Things like DNS should be handled separately, anyway (e.g. the firewall does DNS caching and lookup serving).
You seem to think that this means merging all the protocols into one joint TCP connection. No ... each individual activity will be it's own one connection, which is what most protocols already do. It's the broken ones like FTP that try to do 2 or more concurrent connections at the same time in some related way, especially, going back in the reverse direction, for one activity that need to be fixed so they use just one. Thus there would be one connection for each instance of running a download session, just as there is one connection for each instance of an HTTP request, even though you can still see many such connections of each at any given time on a very busy system.
Me!!
Certainly not in the case of Boston. Incompetency abounds there. Paying them when they act incompetent sends the wrong message. Instead, when a case like this happens, it's the stupid city officials that should reimburse the taxpayers.
It's already circumvented ... 199805098495798194840401541004515635928
Nah ... slashdot effect ... they just ran out of numbers :-)
Maybe. But it definitely is the same as the decimal number 84084977912577888508934728179011456752.