It's hard to walk around a building with a networked device if it's attached to a run of CAT5. Also, don't limit yourself to an 802.x world. Telephones are networks. Also, you may be just as interested in preventing the signals from getting *in* as you are in preventing them from getting out.
The term "security through obscurity" is generally accepted to mean that you are relying on the fact that nobody knows what the weaknesses in the security are in order to prevent attacks. It is using the "Not easily understood" definition of the word obscure, not the "hidden from view" definition. Physically blocking access to the data you are securing is not "security through obscurity" unless you're trying to make a clever play on words, in which case, Hah hah, very funny.
It doesn't depend at all. People can ignore e-mails, disable return receipts, not answer their phone when they see the call ID... But when you're standing right in front of them, you've got their attention and you've got them on the spot for an answer. Face to face wins hands down, and it's not even a close contest.
I hate to tell you but pretty much every "modern" system has components that are written in assembly. Some of us still know how to write low-level software, and that's a good thing, because otherwise all of your fancy "modern" languages wouldn't have a system to run on.
Yes, a lot of those families probably don't manage their money particularly well. But even if they did, they probably wouldn't be saving much. They'd still live paycheck-to-paycheck, they just wouldn't be going into debt every month to pay bills.
I don't buy that. The cost of living has gone up so much largely due to the "how much is it per month" mentality. If people who couldn't afford large amounts of debt were no longer borrowing large amounts of money, the cost of living would not be sustainable and prices would come down rapidly (probably in the form of a housing market collapse). We would quickly return to a point where having a second income in order to be able to afford a home and children would be a choice rather than a requirement.
Really, who cares? If you need higher quality than a color laser, you can run down to the local pharmacy and get a digital print that will be higher quality than what you inkjet would have printed for less than the cost of the ink and paper if you had done it at home.
The only think inkjets are still good for are printing on CDs.
/me hands you a hat that says "Captain Obvious" on the front.
What I'm asking is whether they have done any basic research that has led to practical technology, not whether they themselves have produced anything practical. It stands to reason that if they're doing valuable work than this would happen now and then, and if not then they're not really providing the benefit you describe.
Just because basic science is useful doesn't mean we shouldn't expect some results eventually. I want to know what technology they've enabled. If the answer is 'none', perhaps we should pay somebody else to do our basic science. It is possible, you may realize, to be bad at the basic science. What other metric can we use to judge that?
...of recent technologies they've come up with that have made it into practical use?
I see the value of research for research's sake, but you've got to come up with things that have a practical use once in a while, even if by accident, otherwise that value goes away...
I'm not saying this lab hasn't come up with such things, but if they have, what are they and why aren't some of them listed in the story summary?
There is still room for trust. A well known publication with a respected community of reviewers adds something to a paper. It adds authority through the trust readers place in an established journal.
The real question is that since distribution and publication costs have gone down so much, why do we need to pay so much for access to these journals?
I agree that the study is BS, but you can't convince me that the rechargeable batteries in a Prius are going to last as long as any well maintained V8 that is currently commercially available. It's just not going to happen.
What gets me is that I know I'm not the only one who would be more likely to drop $25 or so on a game without thinking twice if they were priced as such, but when they're priced at $60... I feel more compelled to wait.
You've struck on the exact reason that I own neither an Xbox 360 or a PS3 yet. When the $25 "Greatest Hits" libraries for those systems grows to something sizable, perhaps I'll reconsider my ownership position. $60 for a game is on the borderline of what I'm willing to pay, but they push me over the edge with all this bullshit about how they had to charge that much because development costs are so much higher now.
If they're really too high, then figure out how to get them down. Nobody is forcing you to spend $20 million on development, and if you do spend 20 million on development you'd damned well produce a hit game that is fun to play. Those types of games would have no trouble recouping $20mil at a $35 price point.
Oh, one last thing. Stop including brand licensing fees and the additional cost of voice talent with name recognition (as opposed to one of the hundreds of perfectly good voice actors who don't charge you a million bucks to put their name on the box) in the "development cost" figures. Those aren't development costs, and they have nothing to do with the game being "next-gen".
Creative did not design the Live!. They got the chip when they bought Ensoniq.
Creative has a history of producing crap, treating their customers like crap, and squashing the competition financially before they have a chance to become much of a threat.
I very much disagree with the premise behind these statements. You seem to be ignoring the very existence of Asperger's Syndrome. From The Geek Syndrome
Sure, some geeks have Asperger's. There is a much more common cause for a lack of social skills though. It's the mere lack of experience with the types of situations in which you would require, and thus learn social skills. If you don't work well with others in person, it is far more likely that you simply need some practice than it is for you to have Asperger's.
Since when is this a discussion purely about whether or not they infringed? This is about Viacom seeking a billion dollars in damages. If it was just about Viacom looking for a moral "they infringed" victory, then sure, they'd be 100% in the right. But it's not. It's about a billion dollars.
So, if the judge awards Viacom $50mil or $100mil, who won this lawsuit?
Oh please. You can't possibly assert that the damages to the content owner are the same if the content is posted for a few seconds or weeks. It's not a black and white "you infringed" or "you didn't infringe". It's a matter of degrees, and it always has been.
How much? How long does it stay there before it gets taken down? Does google willingly remove it when it appears there? Does Google actively hinder the discovery of the material? Does blocking Viacom from searching people's "Friends only" videos constitute blocking discovery? Is sharing Viacom content only to your friends "Fair Use"? If not, does it warrant the same punishment as sharing it with the whole world? What level of responsibility falls on Google and what level falls on the user that originally ripped the content?
What? You thought this was black and white? The content is there, so they owe a billion dollars? The hammer will fall somewhere between the two. My prediction is that Google will be forced to pay something, but they will still get the best of this case, and the ruling will be mostly in their favor.
So you went from making a reasonable point to being a troll.
I think it's too early to call this one, as we don't have all the details. On the whole, it seems fishy that this comes shortly after Viacom breaking off their distribution deal and going with (the stupidly named) Joost. It seems like some odd sort of corporate revenge for not giving Viacom the contract terms they were looking for, combined with a desire to make online distribution impractical since they can't figure out how to profit from it. The Billion Dollars number seems fishy to me too. How did they come up with a billion dollars? Also, if Google is going to be punished for blatant violation, why does Viacom deserve to be the beneficiary?
It seems clear that Google (YouTube) did some wrong, but it doesn't follow that means that Viacom is right.
Oh, and to take a page from your book, let me just say that if you respond to this in disagreement it is clear proof that I am right.
Slashdot Mirror
If I have to choose between the lesser of two evils, and the choices are Microsoft and Sony....
Man. That's a hard choice... I think I'd still lean towards Sony though. Microsoft is still actively becoming more evil, but I think Sony has peaked.
It's hard to walk around a building with a networked device if it's attached to a run of CAT5. Also, don't limit yourself to an 802.x world. Telephones are networks. Also, you may be just as interested in preventing the signals from getting *in* as you are in preventing them from getting out.
The term "security through obscurity" is generally accepted to mean that you are relying on the fact that nobody knows what the weaknesses in the security are in order to prevent attacks. It is using the "Not easily understood" definition of the word obscure, not the "hidden from view" definition. Physically blocking access to the data you are securing is not "security through obscurity" unless you're trying to make a clever play on words, in which case, Hah hah, very funny.
It doesn't depend at all. People can ignore e-mails, disable return receipts, not answer their phone when they see the call ID... But when you're standing right in front of them, you've got their attention and you've got them on the spot for an answer. Face to face wins hands down, and it's not even a close contest.
Theoretically you would have a doubled doored vestibule... Most commercial buildings have one anyway to keep the (heat|air conditioning) bills low.
A physical barrier is not security through obscurity.
Yeah, but then the associated breach of contract provides solid ground for a lawsuit.
You'd have thought of that if you weren't so eager to call me names.
I don't know what you do where you work, but here's the algorithm we use:
Any site that doesn't do a manual validity check should be considered to contain public content.
I hate to tell you but pretty much every "modern" system has components that are written in assembly. Some of us still know how to write low-level software, and that's a good thing, because otherwise all of your fancy "modern" languages wouldn't have a system to run on.
I don't buy that. The cost of living has gone up so much largely due to the "how much is it per month" mentality. If people who couldn't afford large amounts of debt were no longer borrowing large amounts of money, the cost of living would not be sustainable and prices would come down rapidly (probably in the form of a housing market collapse). We would quickly return to a point where having a second income in order to be able to afford a home and children would be a choice rather than a requirement.
Really, who cares? If you need higher quality than a color laser, you can run down to the local pharmacy and get a digital print that will be higher quality than what you inkjet would have printed for less than the cost of the ink and paper if you had done it at home.
The only think inkjets are still good for are printing on CDs.
Does that mean it's vaporware? If it exists, how can it be beyond state of the art?
Quickly?
How long has this lab been around?
/me hands you a hat that says "Captain Obvious" on the front.
What I'm asking is whether they have done any basic research that has led to practical technology, not whether they themselves have produced anything practical. It stands to reason that if they're doing valuable work than this would happen now and then, and if not then they're not really providing the benefit you describe.
Just because basic science is useful doesn't mean we shouldn't expect some results eventually. I want to know what technology they've enabled. If the answer is 'none', perhaps we should pay somebody else to do our basic science. It is possible, you may realize, to be bad at the basic science. What other metric can we use to judge that?
...of recent technologies they've come up with that have made it into practical use?
I see the value of research for research's sake, but you've got to come up with things that have a practical use once in a while, even if by accident, otherwise that value goes away...
I'm not saying this lab hasn't come up with such things, but if they have, what are they and why aren't some of them listed in the story summary?
There is still room for trust. A well known publication with a respected community of reviewers adds something to a paper. It adds authority through the trust readers place in an established journal.
The real question is that since distribution and publication costs have gone down so much, why do we need to pay so much for access to these journals?
I agree that the study is BS, but you can't convince me that the rechargeable batteries in a Prius are going to last as long as any well maintained V8 that is currently commercially available. It's just not going to happen.
You've struck on the exact reason that I own neither an Xbox 360 or a PS3 yet. When the $25 "Greatest Hits" libraries for those systems grows to something sizable, perhaps I'll reconsider my ownership position. $60 for a game is on the borderline of what I'm willing to pay, but they push me over the edge with all this bullshit about how they had to charge that much because development costs are so much higher now.
If they're really too high, then figure out how to get them down. Nobody is forcing you to spend $20 million on development, and if you do spend 20 million on development you'd damned well produce a hit game that is fun to play. Those types of games would have no trouble recouping $20mil at a $35 price point.
Oh, one last thing. Stop including brand licensing fees and the additional cost of voice talent with name recognition (as opposed to one of the hundreds of perfectly good voice actors who don't charge you a million bucks to put their name on the box) in the "development cost" figures. Those aren't development costs, and they have nothing to do with the game being "next-gen".
Creative did not design the Live!. They got the chip when they bought Ensoniq.
Creative has a history of producing crap, treating their customers like crap, and squashing the competition financially before they have a chance to become much of a threat.
Sure, some geeks have Asperger's. There is a much more common cause for a lack of social skills though. It's the mere lack of experience with the types of situations in which you would require, and thus learn social skills. If you don't work well with others in person, it is far more likely that you simply need some practice than it is for you to have Asperger's.
Since when is this a discussion purely about whether or not they infringed? This is about Viacom seeking a billion dollars in damages. If it was just about Viacom looking for a moral "they infringed" victory, then sure, they'd be 100% in the right. But it's not. It's about a billion dollars.
So, if the judge awards Viacom $50mil or $100mil, who won this lawsuit?
Oh please. You can't possibly assert that the damages to the content owner are the same if the content is posted for a few seconds or weeks. It's not a black and white "you infringed" or "you didn't infringe". It's a matter of degrees, and it always has been.
How much? How long does it stay there before it gets taken down? Does google willingly remove it when it appears there? Does Google actively hinder the discovery of the material? Does blocking Viacom from searching people's "Friends only" videos constitute blocking discovery? Is sharing Viacom content only to your friends "Fair Use"? If not, does it warrant the same punishment as sharing it with the whole world? What level of responsibility falls on Google and what level falls on the user that originally ripped the content?
What? You thought this was black and white? The content is there, so they owe a billion dollars? The hammer will fall somewhere between the two. My prediction is that Google will be forced to pay something, but they will still get the best of this case, and the ruling will be mostly in their favor.
So you went from making a reasonable point to being a troll.
I think it's too early to call this one, as we don't have all the details. On the whole, it seems fishy that this comes shortly after Viacom breaking off their distribution deal and going with (the stupidly named) Joost. It seems like some odd sort of corporate revenge for not giving Viacom the contract terms they were looking for, combined with a desire to make online distribution impractical since they can't figure out how to profit from it. The Billion Dollars number seems fishy to me too. How did they come up with a billion dollars? Also, if Google is going to be punished for blatant violation, why does Viacom deserve to be the beneficiary?
It seems clear that Google (YouTube) did some wrong, but it doesn't follow that means that Viacom is right.
Oh, and to take a page from your book, let me just say that if you respond to this in disagreement it is clear proof that I am right.
I don't see how modifying it bestows some requirement to save the modified document in the original format...
I think your point is deserving of a mixed metaphor.
This new design is going to get steamrolled by the freight train that is Internet 1.0.
There. Much better.