It's worse when the download actually works. Then they've no reason to be suspicious.
Re:Authors overusing themes...
on
King Rat
·
· Score: -1, Troll
The main character's name in American Gods was SHADOW. I can't believe how many people enjoy Gaiman's novels. They're worse than crap. They're boring crap. If you're going to read crap, read something fun. I can understand someone who reads Michael Crichton before I could understand loves Gaiman.
cc hack is why one needs DRM in order to make sure you're running a copy of the code signed by Linus Torvalds. There are a number of ways DRM could be useful to computer users. Especially inside companies, where it's important that each person have carefully limited capabilities so that they do not accidentally do harm to their own data. Look at Windows Rights Management Server. It's no where near perfect, but provides interesting features that are impossible without DRM.
But that's not what you misunderstood about my post. I'm not trying to convince you to support DRM. I'm not trying to convince you that it's OK to support Disney & MS's new file format, encrypted music downloads, or any other bullshit.
The dude said "there is no legitimate need for Digital Restrictions Management," and that is overstating the case. I felt that I did point out that he was, in current practice, totally correct about DRM.
Re:All you need is Love, errr, Copyright Law
on
Linux and DRM?
·
· Score: 1
Yeah... why don't you ask the record companies how much protection that's given them. Over the past 100 years, I'd say it's worked out pretty fucking well for content distributors. Maybe it's beginning to turn around now, but that's a nice, big pile of cash they've extorted from the producers and the consumers. They might whine, but that's because they're still used to the government creating their business.
If copyright law is so impossible to enforce, maybe that indicates that there's something wrong with the law.
It's an program that emulates a PC on Mac OS X. You can run any version of Windows or Linux on it. It's not particularly fast. I don't think it runs on G5s.
I was pretty sure they bought the whole company. And I was also pretty sure I'd heard the Connectix project managers posting about looking forward to working with their new overlords.
The second I posted it, I realized it would have been funnier if I said "Whoever picked this title is a horse's ass" and left it up to everyone to decide which title...
What Microsoft did was bring their huge audience to a security update for Connectix's tiny little program, VirtualPC. How much input do we really think that Microsoft had on this latest release of VirtualPC? Don't you really think that it was probably horked by the same programmers that would have horked it at the previous developer?
So, someone found the hole. Microsoft released the patch information to every person subscribed to their security lists. That's a lot of weenies. For all we know, if VPC hadn't become an MS product, the vulnerability would still be there, and *no* *one* would have heard about it, including the developers.
If your post isn't flamebait, then my name isn't George W Bush.
Wait...
Re:No need for DRM
on
Linux and DRM?
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
That's incorrect. There are plenty of legitimate needs for Digital Restrictions Management. Not to protect anyone's "content" but your own. That is, you might want DRM hardware that can prove to you that all the trusted code you're running has been signed by Linus Torvalds. That's the "endorsement" Linus made: Some day, it's imaginable, that there could be valid uses for DRM. Valid restrictions that you might choose to place upon yourself.
You are correct, however, in that there is no legitimate need to introduce additional restrictions that prevent you from doing what you want with materials that you have legitimately purchased. Howard Berman can fuck himself. But DRM isn't inherently evil; It's DRM + fucked up laws.
It's because e-trade is trying to help you avoid a short stock squeeze and losing your house.
Sure, in the long run the value of their company is 0, but that's not going to matter for you if it first doubles, and you are forced to sell. If you don't believe it could give you a squeeze, you aren't paying attention. Sure, the 1 year chart's looks like a lobbed softball throw, and it's coming down, but every so often it has a jaggy in it that could wreck a ho. Don't be that ho.
Right. And then you can complain about that site doing the cross linking, or you can think about putting access controls on that sensitive document that you've put on the world-readable public internet.
I realize this is redundant, and you were likely trolling, but Google will leave you right the fuck alone, so long as you put another little file at:
http://yoursite.com/robots.txt
That contains the text:
User-agent: * Disallow:/
I realize this is opt-out rather than opt-in, but there's just one place you have to opt, and there isn't another way that Google could possibly do their job. Everybody else seems to understand that the internet is a publicly accessible network.
So who's to blame? You. You put a sensitive document in a publicly accessible location on the internet, and took no precautions to keep it secure. Not linking to it is not a precaution.
Any extra-terrestrial intelligence which is not civilized would just be animals - hardly Earth's intellectual peers.
And if you're looking for peers, watch Star Trek. That's all the dude is saying. We can not assume that if we find extraterrestrial beings with sufficient processing power, they will speak the "universal language" of math.
Dogs are intelligent, but I wouldn't try to argue that they'd be ok on Earth without us. And I'm not trying to argue that wolves are as intelligent as we are.
Your bias is showing. Wolves are intelligent. Their maths aren't so good. They'd be fine here on Earth without us.
I wouldn't be particularly surprised if some alien species had more processing power than we do, but never once concerned itself with anything like addition and subtraction.
"Disable all lighting effects" would not be a viable solution for many reasons...
No, it would not be a viable solution for specific games. It would be very viable for... all games except on-line competitive games. It's ok if you "effectively ruin" games for yourself.
It would allow the kid to play specific video games and know that they were safe. This would make those video games have a marketting point that might get them some extra sales. It might be worth it for some publishers. (It might also expose them to extra liability should their product fail, so... iduno.)
No, no he wouldn't have. That's the point. He saying he knew his kid was sensitive to this sort of thing, and did check. He's probably extremely upset with himself right now, whether or not it's his fault, so I wouldn't be surprised if he doesn't have everything right side up.
You watch your kid have a gran mal seizure, and we'll gauge your rationality afterwards for comparison.
Without discussing who's job it is, I'm sure we can all agree that determining whether a video game can be made to create the particular type of pattern that may trigger any person's epileptic seizure might be quite difficult. There are two potential solutions. Labeling, if done conservatively and cheaply would pretty much require every video game developer to put "Danger, this videogame has flashing lights that will give you seizures" on the packaging, and the result would be the same: you wouldn't know which ones were actually dangerous for your son.
The other option would be for some developers to either design the game with photosensitives in mind (unlikely) to put "disable all lighting effects" in the options menu. "Disable all lighting effects" doesn't sound like a bad idea... and probably not as expensive to code or QA as a photosensitive-conscious game. It might decrease the quality of the game for y'all epileptics... but you wouldn't be foaming and twitching on the floor. Personally, I'd take that trade.
Slashdot Mirror
It's worse when the download actually works. Then they've no reason to be suspicious.
The main character's name in American Gods was SHADOW. I can't believe how many people enjoy Gaiman's novels. They're worse than crap. They're boring crap. If you're going to read crap, read something fun. I can understand someone who reads Michael Crichton before I could understand loves Gaiman.
cc hack is why one needs DRM in order to make sure you're running a copy of the code signed by Linus Torvalds. There are a number of ways DRM could be useful to computer users. Especially inside companies, where it's important that each person have carefully limited capabilities so that they do not accidentally do harm to their own data. Look at Windows Rights Management Server. It's no where near perfect, but provides interesting features that are impossible without DRM.
But that's not what you misunderstood about my post. I'm not trying to convince you to support DRM. I'm not trying to convince you that it's OK to support Disney & MS's new file format, encrypted music downloads, or any other bullshit.
The dude said "there is no legitimate need for Digital Restrictions Management," and that is overstating the case. I felt that I did point out that he was, in current practice, totally correct about DRM.
Yeah... why don't you ask the record companies how much protection that's given them. Over the past 100 years, I'd say it's worked out pretty fucking well for content distributors. Maybe it's beginning to turn around now, but that's a nice, big pile of cash they've extorted from the producers and the consumers. They might whine, but that's because they're still used to the government creating their business. If copyright law is so impossible to enforce, maybe that indicates that there's something wrong with the law.
It's an program that emulates a PC on Mac OS X. You can run any version of Windows or Linux on it. It's not particularly fast. I don't think it runs on G5s.
I was pretty sure they bought the whole company. And I was also pretty sure I'd heard the Connectix project managers posting about looking forward to working with their new overlords.
The second I posted it, I realized it would have been funnier if I said "Whoever picked this title is a horse's ass" and left it up to everyone to decide which title...
What Microsoft did was bring their huge audience to a security update for Connectix's tiny little program, VirtualPC. How much input do we really think that Microsoft had on this latest release of VirtualPC? Don't you really think that it was probably horked by the same programmers that would have horked it at the previous developer?
So, someone found the hole. Microsoft released the patch information to every person subscribed to their security lists. That's a lot of weenies. For all we know, if VPC hadn't become an MS product, the vulnerability would still be there, and *no* *one* would have heard about it, including the developers.
If your post isn't flamebait, then my name isn't George W Bush.
Wait...
That's incorrect. There are plenty of legitimate needs for Digital Restrictions Management. Not to protect anyone's "content" but your own. That is, you might want DRM hardware that can prove to you that all the trusted code you're running has been signed by Linus Torvalds. That's the "endorsement" Linus made: Some day, it's imaginable, that there could be valid uses for DRM. Valid restrictions that you might choose to place upon yourself.
You are correct, however, in that there is no legitimate need to introduce additional restrictions that prevent you from doing what you want with materials that you have legitimately purchased. Howard Berman can fuck himself. But DRM isn't inherently evil; It's DRM + fucked up laws.
It's because e-trade is trying to help you avoid a short stock squeeze and losing your house.
Sure, in the long run the value of their company is 0, but that's not going to matter for you if it first doubles, and you are forced to sell. If you don't believe it could give you a squeeze, you aren't paying attention. Sure, the 1 year chart's looks like a lobbed softball throw, and it's coming down, but every so often it has a jaggy in it that could wreck a ho. Don't be that ho.
Maybe it has a Ferrari decal. Or Ferrari brand thermal paste.
He probably doesn't care. This is the kind of guy that makes VROOM noises when he's feeding himself.
If people are always lying when they say they read Playboy for the articles, then how come Playboy has a braille edition?
Right. And then you can complain about that site doing the cross linking, or you can think about putting access controls on that sensitive document that you've put on the world-readable public internet.
It's worth a damn if we're talking about Google or archive.org.
No, it's not worth a damn if you're talking about actually sensitive data.
Here's how it works. Let's say you put a page on your site called
i s/ private_document.html
/
http://yoursite.com/temporary/hidden/dontreadth
And it is not linked to ever.
I realize this is redundant, and you were likely trolling, but Google will leave you right the fuck alone, so long as you put another little file at:
http://yoursite.com/robots.txt
That contains the text:
User-agent: *
Disallow:
I realize this is opt-out rather than opt-in, but there's just one place you have to opt, and there isn't another way that Google could possibly do their job. Everybody else seems to understand that the internet is a publicly accessible network.
So who's to blame? You. You put a sensitive document in a publicly accessible location on the internet, and took no precautions to keep it secure. Not linking to it is not a precaution.
No problems in in TextEdit.app
And then all the identity theft and all the RIAA litigation will have been worth it.
Wait, that wasn't your point at all...
Any extra-terrestrial intelligence which is not civilized would just be animals - hardly Earth's intellectual peers.
And if you're looking for peers, watch Star Trek. That's all the dude is saying. We can not assume that if we find extraterrestrial beings with sufficient processing power, they will speak the "universal language" of math.
Dogs are intelligent, but I wouldn't try to argue that they'd be ok on Earth without us. And I'm not trying to argue that wolves are as intelligent as we are.
Your bias is showing. Wolves are intelligent. Their maths aren't so good. They'd be fine here on Earth without us.
I wouldn't be particularly surprised if some alien species had more processing power than we do, but never once concerned itself with anything like addition and subtraction.
"Disable all lighting effects" would not be a viable solution for many reasons...
No, it would not be a viable solution for specific games. It would be very viable for... all games except on-line competitive games. It's ok if you "effectively ruin" games for yourself.
It would allow the kid to play specific video games and know that they were safe. This would make those video games have a marketting point that might get them some extra sales. It might be worth it for some publishers. (It might also expose them to extra liability should their product fail, so... iduno.)
No, no he wouldn't have. That's the point. He saying he knew his kid was sensitive to this sort of thing, and did check. He's probably extremely upset with himself right now, whether or not it's his fault, so I wouldn't be surprised if he doesn't have everything right side up.
You watch your kid have a gran mal seizure, and we'll gauge your rationality afterwards for comparison.
Without discussing who's job it is, I'm sure we can all agree that determining whether a video game can be made to create the particular type of pattern that may trigger any person's epileptic seizure might be quite difficult. There are two potential solutions. Labeling, if done conservatively and cheaply would pretty much require every video game developer to put "Danger, this videogame has flashing lights that will give you seizures" on the packaging, and the result would be the same: you wouldn't know which ones were actually dangerous for your son.
The other option would be for some developers to either design the game with photosensitives in mind (unlikely) to put "disable all lighting effects" in the options menu. "Disable all lighting effects" doesn't sound like a bad idea... and probably not as expensive to code or QA as a photosensitive-conscious game. It might decrease the quality of the game for y'all epileptics... but you wouldn't be foaming and twitching on the floor. Personally, I'd take that trade.