Dealing with it is simple. Keep a database of domains with their date of first appearance and first successful acceptance. For each arriving email, look up the domain in the database. If its first appearance is less than 3 days ago, do a soft reject which will cause a normal mail server to re-queue it. If more than 3 days but less than 4 days, go ahead and accept it and record that it was accepted in the other date field. At any other time, if the record shows there was an email accepted between day 3 and 4, accept future email for this domain. Note that "accept" here only means that this test passes. Other tests can still flag it as spam. The 3 days gives a chance for other means to block this domain to become established, or the domain to be shut down, or for spam filters to learn from other sources how to detect this as spam, if it is. Domains you've dealt with before would be in this database as fully acceptable.
The data is still in the hands of the original owners. By filing this with the BK court, the FTC has established that it is illegal (unless another party's argument can prevail, and this would most likely have to be litigated in a separate venue, not in BK) for the sale to be made. Effectively, the subscribers have a lien on the data, which amounts to an ownership of the right sale, held by the subscribers themselves, in absence. Selling it might then be considered no different than the sale of stolen goods (which even a BK court cannot do).
"Before the magazine's demise, many of the subscribers lived at home with parents."
And this changed how exactly after the bankrupcy of the magazine?
While the subscriber was regularly getting the magazine in its black shrink wrapped form, they knew to look out for it, about what time it would arrive, etc. That ended when the magazine folded, and the subscriber is no longer expecting it to arrive. Or the subscriber has moved on, to college and/or their own place. Suddenly, without expectation, a new mailing arrives. Even if it has the black shrink wrap, the original subscriber is now not there, or even if there, might not be acting in a timely manner, to prevent the parental units from wondering what's in this strange black envelope and physically tearing it open. Now the damage is done where it otherwise would not have had either the magazine continued operation (the subscriber could quit, not renew, or change address, or just keep on expecting it) or if the magazine abandons its list in a restart under new ownership.
Maybe a bankrupcy of slashdot would be a good thing for the readers too...
Comcast will be moving ALL channels to digital. The over-the-air channels will probably be last in most areas. Analog is a waste of spectrum. They can put 10 to 12 standard definition programs in that 6 MHz of space each analog channel uses. So by moving the NBC/CBS/ABC/PBS/FOX affiliates, they gain 45 to 55 channels in standard definition. Or that space could expand on the high definition, or 3D, or internet, or phone, or some combination thereof. Comcast certainly has some arrogant attitudes in many things. But this is not one of them. Though they may need to provide the OP's city with more free converter boxes.
"I'm sorry, I'm just the IT guy. Let me transfer you to someone who gives a fuck."... and transfer the caller to the city attorney, telling him/her that Comcast is trying to weasel out of their franchise agreement.
My netbook has no trouble running on 12V DC. Tell me what inside a full size laptop needs a higher voltage in a way that cannot be converted by a DC-DC converter (which, BTW, can also convert up). Of course, I'd expect the laptop to use a couple more amps. My ham radio gear uses more amps than a laptop ever should... at the same voltage.
The problem is that, back then, Dell lied to their customers about the problem. Then when Dell found out the truth about the problem, they just kept on lying. Lots of those computer actually did not get fixed or replaced. At least half didn't, and apparently most didn't. Dell NEVER did a recall. They should have. People lost money, lost data, lost business, all for Dell's bottom line. Some people never have even found out. Dell told them it was some other problem, that was in the "customer caused" category. People bought some other computer (maybe from Dell, maybe elsewhere), and just didn't deal with it anymore, at a loss.
Once Dell sends every one of those customers a whole new computer that doesn't have any problems for 3 years, then I'll change my tune about Dell.
Disclosure: my employer bought me a Dell laptop in November 2009. It died in April 2010. I got a new one, now. It's been 3 months and it is still working. I have no idea for how long. I don't trust it.
Singling one out is more effective. If Dell tanks, it puts genuine fear in the eyes of the others. Not singling one out makes them all look more like angels.
At least the HTML5 developers are trying. The Flash developers are not even claiming to be attempting to try to make theirs the universal solution, and instead, are just relying on trying to jam it into everyone's computer.
If they use VP8 as the codec for a video site, and provide the Flash Player as one option to display the video, and the HTML5 with video tag as another option, then that should make everyone happy, right? I'm NOT opposed to someone offering a Flash player as a means to view a video. What I am opposed to is someone NOT offering a web standard means with an unencumbered video codec. VP8 is perhaps the codec we could use (Dirac would have worked, too, but people were ignoring it because they hate BBC or something). If they make all the video files into VP8 format, they won't have to store duplicates to offer views both ways.
YouTube doesn't own the videos that you watch - they're owned by their respective creators, who control how those videos are distributed through YouTube. For YouTube Rentals, video owners require us to use secure streaming technology, such as the Flash Platform's RTMPE protocol, to ensure their videos are not redistributed. Without content protection, we would not be able to offer videos like this.
As much as the open source community hates it, content protection really can be done open source systems like Linux and BSD, even with every component being compiled by the end user, without exposing the content. Hint: it involves sealing the description and playback logic in the video card and using an HDCP capable display for full quality (depending on the quality restrictions of the video being played).
Flash Player's ability to combine application code and resources into a secure, efficient package has been instrumental in allowing YouTube videos to be embedded in other web sites. Web site owners need to ensure that embedded content is not able to access private user information on the containing page, and we need to ensure that our video player logic travels with the video (for features like captions, annotations, and advertising). While HTML5 adds sandboxing and message-passing functionality, Flash is the only mechanism most web sites allow for embedded content from other sites.
Just put the advertising inside the video.
We The People need to be sure OUR computers are not abused... to be sure OUR private data cannot be accessed... but abusive web sites (or other vermin). That's why we need to be able to full audit everything run on our computers. But see above for a way to do what you want via the sealed display method where an entirely open source system just shuttles a data stream through.
HD video begs to be watched in full screen, but that has not historically been possible with pure HTML. While most browsers have a fullscreen mode, they do not allow javascript to initiate it, nor do they allow a small part of the page (such as a video player) to fill the screen. Flash Player provides robust, secure controls for enabling hardware-accelerated fullscreen displays. While WebKit has recently taken some steps forward on fullscreen support, it's not yet sufficient for video usage (particularly the ability to continue displaying content on top of the video).
MPlayer does this just fine. MPlayer can be launched from a browser. Oh, wait... you want to automatically launch full screen mode without permission so you can cover up user control of their own computer. See above for a way to do what you want via the sealed display method.
Video is not just a one-way medium. Every day, thousands of users record videos directly to YouTube from within their browser using webcams, which would not be possible without Flash technology. Camera access is also needed for features like video chat and live broadcasting - extremely important on mobile phones which practically all have a built-in camera. Flash Player has provided rich camera and microphone access for several years now, while HTML5 is just getting started.
Again, people should have the right to control their own computer. Every aspect of this can be done via open source. Oh wait, it already has been done.
We're very happy to see such active and enthusiastic discussion about evolving web standards - YouTube is dependent on browser enhancement in order for us to improve the video experience for our users. While HTML5's video support enables us to bring most of the content and features of YouTube to computers and other devices that don't support Flash Player, it does not yet meet all of our needs. Today, Adobe Flash provides the best platform for YouTube's video distribution requirements, which is why our primary video player is bu
When are they going to get to a point where all of the RAM is on the same die with the processor core(s) that need access to that RAM? By shortening the path to the RAM from going off-chip to staying on-chip, the opportunity for increased speed and lower power consumption arises. And this can also be constructed more compactly, allowing more such complete processors within the same space. Then with more processors, at some point we no longer even need virtual memory for at least the bulk of the processors (the ones doing the heavy computational parts). By removing the virtual memory mapping hardware, things can get smaller and use even less power, giving even more computational capability.
Hopefully, if we keep this up, we'll end up with 2^256 processor cores inside a singularity and have the ability, given enough time, to simulate a complete universe.
A smart card might well be a useful tool to safely present your identity to many different web sites. However, that's not the only way. And I am not talking about OpenID, which has risks. And I am not even talking about delegating any form of trust to another party (which OpenID does).
The simple answer is that browsers should maintain your identity information. You provide the encryption passphrase to access that database of identity info. Each time you visit a site that requests a login (by means of standardized headers in the HTTP response for this, which includes an HTTPS URL to present identity), a indicator of your choice in the browser will inform you that you have the option to signup or login. You might even set a given site name to be automatically logged in, if you prefer (a flag added to the identity info stored in your encrypted database). The signup process exchanges random numbers. To login, the browser switches to HTTPS and verifies the certificate against both the CA certificates as usual, and also a certificate reference in the identity database. Then an authenticity exchange of choice (password, CRAM-MD5, etc) will take place from information established when first signing up. Then you're in. No need for a third party.
The scheme needs to be open source so it can verified as correct. The format for the database needs to be standardized so it can be ported to other tools when desired (probably best a text format, compressed, then encrypted).
Now this scheme won't connect a signup to a real person. If a web site wants that (for example a bank), then more needs to be done, and that smart card might be one way to do it. But for accessing web sites like Slashdot, that should not matter (free speech doesn't need to know who you really are, and for various reasons, must not, or else the speech can't really be free). I just don't want people thinking the smart card is needed for most web site logins (although the smart card might well be someone's preference for opening the encrypted database of web site identities).
They don't even need to remove DRM to start actually making money in the movie buying market. What they need to do is restructure the logic of how the DRM works so that copying content has no effect... other than reducing their download demands.
Basically, how it would work is that the content is encrypted, as expected. Let the encrypted content be copied and traded freely. Sell playback certificates that are bound to a specific decoding device (NOT software). This device ultimately should be a monitor with a means added in (either over the HDMI connection, or via a separate USB connection) to pass the encrypted (and compressed) audio/video stream, along with a certificate that only that monitor can decrypt which has the decryption key for the content.
Software (and it can be open source, too, since nothing special needs to be done here) would get the public key of the monitor and pass it along to the movie seller. Once payment is made, they sign it and send it back. As part of that is the decryption key, encrypted by that monitor's public key (if determined to be valid). The details happens inside the software for people that aren't programmers (a browser or plugin could do it).
There are more details to keep it secure, but it doesn't need to require more software than what can be incorporated into the browser, or other alternatives. It can be done in open source (by a programmer than can understand those details, or use a toolkit that is likely to emerge for it). This would work because it isn't the software that decrypts anything; the monitor would do that. Alternatives to the monitor doing that are other devices like video cards or DVD players with a USB port which will enforce the HDCP requirement.
FYI... I hate DRM as much as any geek. But I also know, and acknowledge, that it is possible, when doing it right and doing it carefully... and (most important) doing it without an arrogant corporate attitude of forcing everyone to use some specific software that will do spamming... to actually make a form of DRM actually work, and even with BSD and Linux.
The real problem, of course, is that the MPAA members are either just to incompetent (I don't expect a CEO to understand these crypt details, but they should be able to get technical advisors that can figure it out... incompetence thus being unwilling to pay a geek to do it) or too arrogant (they really want to do something else besides just selling a movie to everyone in the world... selling a right to play the movie, that is). So it will never happen. The "DRM wars" will go on for a couple more decades until the MPAA itself goes out of existance because most of its members have folded because they failed to follow the market.
I noticed just today that Windows 7 was NOT using the standard EUI-64 (derived from MAC address) data in their auto-configured IPv6 addresses. Instead, the addresses seemed to be randomly generated. Maybe someone at Microsoft understood this issue ahead of time.
Slashdot Mirror
Dealing with it is simple. Keep a database of domains with their date of first appearance and first successful acceptance. For each arriving email, look up the domain in the database. If its first appearance is less than 3 days ago, do a soft reject which will cause a normal mail server to re-queue it. If more than 3 days but less than 4 days, go ahead and accept it and record that it was accepted in the other date field. At any other time, if the record shows there was an email accepted between day 3 and 4, accept future email for this domain. Note that "accept" here only means that this test passes. Other tests can still flag it as spam. The 3 days gives a chance for other means to block this domain to become established, or the domain to be shut down, or for spam filters to learn from other sources how to detect this as spam, if it is. Domains you've dealt with before would be in this database as fully acceptable.
Alla din bas är tillhöra oss!
The data is still in the hands of the original owners. By filing this with the BK court, the FTC has established that it is illegal (unless another party's argument can prevail, and this would most likely have to be litigated in a separate venue, not in BK) for the sale to be made. Effectively, the subscribers have a lien on the data, which amounts to an ownership of the right sale, held by the subscribers themselves, in absence. Selling it might then be considered no different than the sale of stolen goods (which even a BK court cannot do).
"Before the magazine's demise, many of the subscribers lived at home with parents."
And this changed how exactly after the bankrupcy of the magazine?
While the subscriber was regularly getting the magazine in its black shrink wrapped form, they knew to look out for it, about what time it would arrive, etc. That ended when the magazine folded, and the subscriber is no longer expecting it to arrive. Or the subscriber has moved on, to college and/or their own place. Suddenly, without expectation, a new mailing arrives. Even if it has the black shrink wrap, the original subscriber is now not there, or even if there, might not be acting in a timely manner, to prevent the parental units from wondering what's in this strange black envelope and physically tearing it open. Now the damage is done where it otherwise would not have had either the magazine continued operation (the subscriber could quit, not renew, or change address, or just keep on expecting it) or if the magazine abandons its list in a restart under new ownership.
Maybe a bankrupcy of slashdot would be a good thing for the readers too ...
OMG! No more kitty porn???
Comcast will be moving ALL channels to digital. The over-the-air channels will probably be last in most areas. Analog is a waste of spectrum. They can put 10 to 12 standard definition programs in that 6 MHz of space each analog channel uses. So by moving the NBC/CBS/ABC/PBS/FOX affiliates, they gain 45 to 55 channels in standard definition. Or that space could expand on the high definition, or 3D, or internet, or phone, or some combination thereof. Comcast certainly has some arrogant attitudes in many things. But this is not one of them. Though they may need to provide the OP's city with more free converter boxes.
"I'm sorry, I'm just the IT guy. Let me transfer you to someone who gives a fuck." ... and transfer the caller to the city attorney, telling him/her that Comcast is trying to weasel out of their franchise agreement.
You mean this molex?
... but even more important is a single voltage.
70 to 120 watts? OMG! WTF! No wonder so many male geeks have burned their ... oh ... uh ... junk.
My netbook has no trouble running on 12V DC. Tell me what inside a full size laptop needs a higher voltage in a way that cannot be converted by a DC-DC converter (which, BTW, can also convert up). Of course, I'd expect the laptop to use a couple more amps. My ham radio gear uses more amps than a laptop ever should ... at the same voltage.
Or ... the cop who was justified in his actions sues the person who sued him.
The problem is that, back then, Dell lied to their customers about the problem. Then when Dell found out the truth about the problem, they just kept on lying. Lots of those computer actually did not get fixed or replaced. At least half didn't, and apparently most didn't. Dell NEVER did a recall. They should have. People lost money, lost data, lost business, all for Dell's bottom line. Some people never have even found out. Dell told them it was some other problem, that was in the "customer caused" category. People bought some other computer (maybe from Dell, maybe elsewhere), and just didn't deal with it anymore, at a loss.
Once Dell sends every one of those customers a whole new computer that doesn't have any problems for 3 years, then I'll change my tune about Dell.
Disclosure: my employer bought me a Dell laptop in November 2009. It died in April 2010. I got a new one, now. It's been 3 months and it is still working. I have no idea for how long. I don't trust it.
Singling one out is more effective. If Dell tanks, it puts genuine fear in the eyes of the others. Not singling one out makes them all look more like angels.
Just organize the differences you make as a set of SlackBuilds and release those. Call it a derivative (unless you are a financial institution).
At least the HTML5 developers are trying. The Flash developers are not even claiming to be attempting to try to make theirs the universal solution, and instead, are just relying on trying to jam it into everyone's computer.
If they use VP8 as the codec for a video site, and provide the Flash Player as one option to display the video, and the HTML5 with video tag as another option, then that should make everyone happy, right? I'm NOT opposed to someone offering a Flash player as a means to view a video. What I am opposed to is someone NOT offering a web standard means with an unencumbered video codec. VP8 is perhaps the codec we could use (Dirac would have worked, too, but people were ignoring it because they hate BBC or something). If they make all the video files into VP8 format, they won't have to store duplicates to offer views both ways.
YouTube doesn't own the videos that you watch - they're owned by their respective creators, who control how those videos are distributed through YouTube. For YouTube Rentals, video owners require us to use secure streaming technology, such as the Flash Platform's RTMPE protocol, to ensure their videos are not redistributed. Without content protection, we would not be able to offer videos like this.
As much as the open source community hates it, content protection really can be done open source systems like Linux and BSD, even with every component being compiled by the end user, without exposing the content. Hint: it involves sealing the description and playback logic in the video card and using an HDCP capable display for full quality (depending on the quality restrictions of the video being played).
Flash Player's ability to combine application code and resources into a secure, efficient package has been instrumental in allowing YouTube videos to be embedded in other web sites. Web site owners need to ensure that embedded content is not able to access private user information on the containing page, and we need to ensure that our video player logic travels with the video (for features like captions, annotations, and advertising). While HTML5 adds sandboxing and message-passing functionality, Flash is the only mechanism most web sites allow for embedded content from other sites.
Just put the advertising inside the video.
We The People need to be sure OUR computers are not abused ... to be sure OUR private data cannot be accessed ... but abusive web sites (or other vermin). That's why we need to be able to full audit everything run on our computers. But see above for a way to do what you want via the sealed display method where an entirely open source system just shuttles a data stream through.
HD video begs to be watched in full screen, but that has not historically been possible with pure HTML. While most browsers have a fullscreen mode, they do not allow javascript to initiate it, nor do they allow a small part of the page (such as a video player) to fill the screen. Flash Player provides robust, secure controls for enabling hardware-accelerated fullscreen displays. While WebKit has recently taken some steps forward on fullscreen support, it's not yet sufficient for video usage (particularly the ability to continue displaying content on top of the video).
MPlayer does this just fine. MPlayer can be launched from a browser. Oh, wait ... you want to automatically launch full screen mode without permission so you can cover up user control of their own computer. See above for a way to do what you want via the sealed display method.
Video is not just a one-way medium. Every day, thousands of users record videos directly to YouTube from within their browser using webcams, which would not be possible without Flash technology. Camera access is also needed for features like video chat and live broadcasting - extremely important on mobile phones which practically all have a built-in camera. Flash Player has provided rich camera and microphone access for several years now, while HTML5 is just getting started.
Again, people should have the right to control their own computer. Every aspect of this can be done via open source. Oh wait, it already has been done.
We're very happy to see such active and enthusiastic discussion about evolving web standards - YouTube is dependent on browser enhancement in order for us to improve the video experience for our users. While HTML5's video support enables us to bring most of the content and features of YouTube to computers and other devices that don't support Flash Player, it does not yet meet all of our needs. Today, Adobe Flash provides the best platform for YouTube's video distribution requirements, which is why our primary video player is bu
OK, so, does that mean I should include RAM in an SoC or not?
When are they going to get to a point where all of the RAM is on the same die with the processor core(s) that need access to that RAM? By shortening the path to the RAM from going off-chip to staying on-chip, the opportunity for increased speed and lower power consumption arises. And this can also be constructed more compactly, allowing more such complete processors within the same space. Then with more processors, at some point we no longer even need virtual memory for at least the bulk of the processors (the ones doing the heavy computational parts). By removing the virtual memory mapping hardware, things can get smaller and use even less power, giving even more computational capability.
Hopefully, if we keep this up, we'll end up with 2^256 processor cores inside a singularity and have the ability, given enough time, to simulate a complete universe.
A smart card might well be a useful tool to safely present your identity to many different web sites. However, that's not the only way. And I am not talking about OpenID, which has risks. And I am not even talking about delegating any form of trust to another party (which OpenID does).
The simple answer is that browsers should maintain your identity information. You provide the encryption passphrase to access that database of identity info. Each time you visit a site that requests a login (by means of standardized headers in the HTTP response for this, which includes an HTTPS URL to present identity), a indicator of your choice in the browser will inform you that you have the option to signup or login. You might even set a given site name to be automatically logged in, if you prefer (a flag added to the identity info stored in your encrypted database). The signup process exchanges random numbers. To login, the browser switches to HTTPS and verifies the certificate against both the CA certificates as usual, and also a certificate reference in the identity database. Then an authenticity exchange of choice (password, CRAM-MD5, etc) will take place from information established when first signing up. Then you're in. No need for a third party.
The scheme needs to be open source so it can verified as correct. The format for the database needs to be standardized so it can be ported to other tools when desired (probably best a text format, compressed, then encrypted).
Now this scheme won't connect a signup to a real person. If a web site wants that (for example a bank), then more needs to be done, and that smart card might be one way to do it. But for accessing web sites like Slashdot, that should not matter (free speech doesn't need to know who you really are, and for various reasons, must not, or else the speech can't really be free). I just don't want people thinking the smart card is needed for most web site logins (although the smart card might well be someone's preference for opening the encrypted database of web site identities).
... FTW. Let's see them munge the headers with that.
I remember you being around then, too.
They don't even need to remove DRM to start actually making money in the movie buying market. What they need to do is restructure the logic of how the DRM works so that copying content has no effect ... other than reducing their download demands.
Basically, how it would work is that the content is encrypted, as expected. Let the encrypted content be copied and traded freely. Sell playback certificates that are bound to a specific decoding device (NOT software). This device ultimately should be a monitor with a means added in (either over the HDMI connection, or via a separate USB connection) to pass the encrypted (and compressed) audio/video stream, along with a certificate that only that monitor can decrypt which has the decryption key for the content.
Software (and it can be open source, too, since nothing special needs to be done here) would get the public key of the monitor and pass it along to the movie seller. Once payment is made, they sign it and send it back. As part of that is the decryption key, encrypted by that monitor's public key (if determined to be valid). The details happens inside the software for people that aren't programmers (a browser or plugin could do it).
There are more details to keep it secure, but it doesn't need to require more software than what can be incorporated into the browser, or other alternatives. It can be done in open source (by a programmer than can understand those details, or use a toolkit that is likely to emerge for it). This would work because it isn't the software that decrypts anything; the monitor would do that. Alternatives to the monitor doing that are other devices like video cards or DVD players with a USB port which will enforce the HDCP requirement.
FYI ... I hate DRM as much as any geek. But I also know, and acknowledge, that it is possible, when doing it right and doing it carefully ... and (most important) doing it without an arrogant corporate attitude of forcing everyone to use some specific software that will do spamming ... to actually make a form of DRM actually work, and even with BSD and Linux.
The real problem, of course, is that the MPAA members are either just to incompetent (I don't expect a CEO to understand these crypt details, but they should be able to get technical advisors that can figure it out ... incompetence thus being unwilling to pay a geek to do it) or too arrogant (they really want to do something else besides just selling a movie to everyone in the world ... selling a right to play the movie, that is). So it will never happen. The "DRM wars" will go on for a couple more decades until the MPAA itself goes out of existance because most of its members have folded because they failed to follow the market.
I noticed just today that Windows 7 was NOT using the standard EUI-64 (derived from MAC address) data in their auto-configured IPv6 addresses. Instead, the addresses seemed to be randomly generated. Maybe someone at Microsoft understood this issue ahead of time.
And I always thought my GF was the other white meat.