All DRM schemes are inherently flawed. They are all based on trying to simultaneously keep and tell a secret. And streaming services generally aren't DRM-free, though they often are a convenient way to access a wide array or rotating content. Because all DRM schemes are necessarily flawed as piracy protection, the only logical assumption is they they are not really about limiting piracy at all and are actually intended to serve some other purpose. (Distributor lock-in and format freezing)
Additionally there's little evidence that piracy displaces sales. The bigger danger for an artist is a lack of visibility in the market.
DeCSS let you reclaim the format of DVD. You no longer had to watch DVD content on devices "approved" by the coalition. It broke the power of the distributor to limit the way you or I can consume content.
HDCP is precisely the opposite, handing over control of how and where you watch media to the middleman. Like CSS, HDCP in this case is useless without the specter of the DMCA and other "anti-circumvention" legislation, as you could easily create a side channel in the driver to dump video streams to disk. Unless upstream providers only intend to enable content on devices already locked down with a RIAA rootkit, in which (highly likely) case the code is useless to anyone not already in a strong middleman position with their own custom devices (Google, Verizon, Amazon...)
And you can like the content of the artists, writers, and performers without liking the methods the distributors and investors use to squeeze out every cent of profit they possibly can out of a work, especially when they reduce the average person's control over their own devices.
Poverty isn't the primary factor in crime. The Great depression didn't lead to a massive crime wave. It's rather the inverse that is more true. Crime creates poverty to a greater extent than poverty creates crime. Yes there's a huge under-prosecution of white collar crime, and that's bad. But the way so solve high-crime low-income areas is to reduce the crime side via reduction of childhood abuse and neglect.
Members of two violent gangs go looking for a fight. If fight ensues, they are both criminals. The danger is the conflict will grow, and more people looking for a cause and personal meaning will take up with one side or another.
And the antifa does have a particular ideological profile even it they aren't formally organized. (A activist tactic to avoid or route around police interference). The Jesish Rabbi council is definitely against Nazi's, but I would guess they tend to be pretty pro-capitalism. There is definitely a common ground of post-marxist critical theory and a tendency towards direct action outside of political channels. Trolls aside they do actually believe in a lot of left-wing nonsense.
I'm the waiter telling you most people can't tell any difference between a $50 dollar bottle of wine and a $500 bottle. Maybe everyone who gets the $500 dollar bottle is a super-taster, but more likely they want to impress someone. Sure there are a few corner cases were you 99.999% need POSIX compatibility, but for most things 99.98% is good enough.
Pulling a switcheroo is just plain silly and passive-aggressive (and nowhere did I suggest you do that), asking question about underlying technical requirements and new suggestions based on the answers is not.
So going back to the wine analogy, and my original question. Are the order requirements actually about some vital technical difference in the product, or is it about something else?
Encrypt your hard drives, and then power down the device before going through any checkpoint. You may want to keep some of your coin in a cold wallet for bail and/or a lawyer.
Got it, You don't actually know if there's a technical reason or not, and how widely applicable it is.(Obviously I'm not aware of any otherwise I wouldn't have asked the question) Further, you don't really care as long as you get paid.
Don't be thick. Is there a fundamental technical reason, and does it apply to your average desktop or server? Ya I get that you're a cog in a corporate machine and you have to obey the logic of the machine. The question is weather the machine is operating on good logic or old and broken assumptions that that are costing them money. And you can always sent a proposals back up the chain to modify requirements for reason a-c and x-z.
What? Plain English please. If the only reason is to satisfy bureaucracy, then it doesn't really seem like a reason to me. Sure, you want hardware validated to your OS, but the UNIX specification doesn't include a Hardware Abstraction Layer, so any hardware validation is going to be OS specific and not portable like POSIX is.
There probably is some legacy stuff floating around out there that nobody understands except that it goes haywire if compiled against anything out of spec, but you aren't going to find it on your average desktop or server.
Some m.2 SSD's have a legacy option ROM that can be used to boot. Other boards may have and UEFI driver availible, but it's not going to work out of the box on every system and every drive on the X79 platform.
The patent isn't a legal person, and can't be sued. However you can view the IPR process as a suit against the patent office challenging the underlying validity of an issued patent. I don't thing it's a stretch at all for the patent office and PTAB to have jurisdiction over the validity of patents, if not, then how in the world do you know your patent is valid. Of course the party interested in the patent is invited to weigh in of the process and provide further information with regard to their patent, but I don't see how their participation is absolutely necessary for IPR.
Slashdot Mirror
You need at least 40 bytes in the packet header.
The "S: if for security. ;)
All DRM schemes are inherently flawed. They are all based on trying to simultaneously keep and tell a secret. And streaming services generally aren't DRM-free, though they often are a convenient way to access a wide array or rotating content. Because all DRM schemes are necessarily flawed as piracy protection, the only logical assumption is they they are not really about limiting piracy at all and are actually intended to serve some other purpose. (Distributor lock-in and format freezing)
Additionally there's little evidence that piracy displaces sales. The bigger danger for an artist is a lack of visibility in the market.
DeCSS let you reclaim the format of DVD. You no longer had to watch DVD content on devices "approved" by the coalition. It broke the power of the distributor to limit the way you or I can consume content.
HDCP is precisely the opposite, handing over control of how and where you watch media to the middleman. Like CSS, HDCP in this case is useless without the specter of the DMCA and other "anti-circumvention" legislation, as you could easily create a side channel in the driver to dump video streams to disk. Unless upstream providers only intend to enable content on devices already locked down with a RIAA rootkit, in which (highly likely) case the code is useless to anyone not already in a strong middleman position with their own custom devices (Google, Verizon, Amazon...)
And you can like the content of the artists, writers, and performers without liking the methods the distributors and investors use to squeeze out every cent of profit they possibly can out of a work, especially when they reduce the average person's control over their own devices.
Poverty isn't the primary factor in crime. The Great depression didn't lead to a massive crime wave. It's rather the inverse that is more true. Crime creates poverty to a greater extent than poverty creates crime. Yes there's a huge under-prosecution of white collar crime, and that's bad. But the way so solve high-crime low-income areas is to reduce the crime side via reduction of childhood abuse and neglect.
It actually may or may not be. If a person agreed to work for less that official minimum wage it's not theft.
Wrong article guys, sorry
Please take your outdated, $2 billion dollar + aproval process and shove it where the sun don't shine.
Power law distribution. And yes, it is a fairly common pattern in cooperative endeavors.
Any event big enough to disrupt bitcoin, would disprupt credit cards and banking just the same. Not many people keeps cash.
Members of two violent gangs go looking for a fight. If fight ensues, they are both criminals. The danger is the conflict will grow, and more people looking for a cause and personal meaning will take up with one side or another.
And the antifa does have a particular ideological profile even it they aren't formally organized. (A activist tactic to avoid or route around police interference). The Jesish Rabbi council is definitely against Nazi's, but I would guess they tend to be pretty pro-capitalism. There is definitely a common ground of post-marxist critical theory and a tendency towards direct action outside of political channels. Trolls aside they do actually believe in a lot of left-wing nonsense.
Sometimes all zeros will work. If there isn't a straightforward way for the database to case to code, then it just writes in zeros.
Or ghosts are real and Castro is pi$$ed.
I'm the waiter telling you most people can't tell any difference between a $50 dollar bottle of wine and a $500 bottle. Maybe everyone who gets the $500 dollar bottle is a super-taster, but more likely they want to impress someone. Sure there are a few corner cases were you 99.999% need POSIX compatibility, but for most things 99.98% is good enough.
Pulling a switcheroo is just plain silly and passive-aggressive (and nowhere did I suggest you do that), asking question about underlying technical requirements and new suggestions based on the answers is not.
So going back to the wine analogy, and my original question. Are the order requirements actually about some vital technical difference in the product, or is it about something else?
Encrypt your hard drives, and then power down the device before going through any checkpoint. You may want to keep some of your coin in a cold wallet for bail and/or a lawyer.
Got it, You don't actually know if there's a technical reason or not, and how widely applicable it is.(Obviously I'm not aware of any otherwise I wouldn't have asked the question) Further, you don't really care as long as you get paid.
Don't be thick. Is there a fundamental technical reason, and does it apply to your average desktop or server? Ya I get that you're a cog in a corporate machine and you have to obey the logic of the machine. The question is weather the machine is operating on good logic or old and broken assumptions that that are costing them money. And you can always sent a proposals back up the chain to modify requirements for reason a-c and x-z.
What? Plain English please. If the only reason is to satisfy bureaucracy, then it doesn't really seem like a reason to me. Sure, you want hardware validated to your OS, but the UNIX specification doesn't include a Hardware Abstraction Layer, so any hardware validation is going to be OS specific and not portable like POSIX is.
There probably is some legacy stuff floating around out there that nobody understands except that it goes haywire if compiled against anything out of spec, but you aren't going to find it on your average desktop or server.
Set a box out and hook it to your doorbell.
Open Power, FTW. Cost and arm and a leg, but you can build a powerful system tha't s open from the bottom up.
Some m.2 SSD's have a legacy option ROM that can be used to boot. Other boards may have and UEFI driver availible, but it's not going to work out of the box on every system and every drive on the X79 platform.
Buy EPYC!? (Sorry, OCD made me do it)
Some ipv6 connection will sometimes give you a /56 or higher
How useful is certification anyways say vs. LSB?
The patent isn't a legal person, and can't be sued. However you can view the IPR process as a suit against the patent office challenging the underlying validity of an issued patent. I don't thing it's a stretch at all for the patent office and PTAB to have jurisdiction over the validity of patents, if not, then how in the world do you know your patent is valid. Of course the party interested in the patent is invited to weigh in of the process and provide further information with regard to their patent, but I don't see how their participation is absolutely necessary for IPR.