Which simply means that anti-circumvention is a redundant provision in the law. Infringing copyright is against the law either way, so why do we need another provision on top of that?
The solution to problems like this: encrypt all data in the cloud.
Unfortunately, this runs into the same problems as DRM: the cloud applications need the encryption key, which means that the cloud has access to unencrypted data at some point.
But at least exposure is limited to actively accessed data, right?
And this isn't just limited to racial slurs. Many "politically correct" euphemisms are there just to avoid a phrase that someone took offense at, even when the phrase was not originally offensive.
What this boils down to is people choosing to take offense. At that point, they're just making themselves look stupid and inviting further offense.
As long as you're doing work, that's not all that bad. But I have two computers, alternating between them periodically (usually > 5 min, of course).
Having to type in my 20+ character password constantly has trained me to immediately stop what I'm doing and jiggle the mouse whenever the screensaver comes on (there's a couple second gap before the lock takes effect).
It gets worse when I'm jittery from too much sugar/caffeine.
My mom went to the gas station once back when the digital pay-at-the-pump systems first came out. But... the thing simply wouldn't work. After pushing every button she could, she went to the attendant for help.
Of course, when they went back, everything was working fine.
It turned out she was wearing polarized sun glasses, which she then took off when she went inside to talk to the clerk.
I do not own an iPhone, nor any other smart phone... mostly because it doesn't fit my lifestyle currently (I barely use the cell phone I have), which means I can't justify it financially.
However, I do have a couple Apple products, and I'll use them when they fit my needs. I don't buy them because they're "cool" but because they're the right device for the right time. And when it's not the right device, well... see above.
I can't speak for anybody else, but my problem isn't with Apple itself, but with poor management in general. I've been burned too many times by poor management (who immediately get awards and promotions, of course) that I really, really want them to get slapped around every now and again.
Of course, that doesn't change your point. My ranting doesn't change my status as a customer one bit, so why should Apple care, in the end?
I probably shouldn't respond, but I do have a couple points to make. Let me quote first:
I... am actually amazed that there aren't more antenna detuning and impedance-changing problems from body contact (or even close proximity).
I completely agree. In fact, I'd bet the engineers assigned with making this antenna work knew what they were up against, and then met the challenge head-on. They probably took special steps to tune the antenna knowing that a body would be touching it.
BTW, as an "engineer", you should also know that GOOD antenna design is HARD, and, the higher the frequency, the more critical the design, and more easily upset is the characteristic impedance.
Did I say otherwise? This is exactly why I have a hard time thinking that this was only a testing failure. RF engineers know just how sensitive their design is... and they know how stupid it is to expose the antenna like on the iPhone.
So, really, there's only two options. Either the engineers were ignorant and their errors didn't come out until after release, or they were overruled. I actually know a few people who design (and research) antennas, and have a very hard time believing this was a simple oversight or testing failure.
By the way, why all the skepticism over me being an engineer? Would it help if I told you that I, too, have designed a 802.15.4 product (Zigbee, to be precise, and from scratch... including the antenna, an experience I don't want to repeat)? Probably not.
Jobs made this point by pointing out just how nonstandard the relationship is between bars and actual signal quality. Regardless, people have certain expectations on what the bars mean:
0 bars: no signal 1 bar: Can make a call, but it might drop if you move wrong 2 bars: OK connection, but don't go through a long underpass 3 bars: Steady connection, few problems if any 4+ bars: Great connection, no problems
The bars are a qualitative measurement, not quantitative.
Probably the biggest problem that with the iPhone was that someone could go from "Great connection" to "Might drop if I hop on one leg" just by holding it left-handed. Regardless of technical details, this is exactly why people made such a fuss.
Yeah, they're probably biased... but the bigger problem is that they simply can't collect the right statistic without going through some extreme measures.
What we really want to know is "is the signal attenuation a problem to you?" The numbers they gave don't answer that question. Now, had they given the results of a properly done survey, I might trust it more.
But even then, there's too much emotion involved to get any sort of feeling for just how many people are effected.
The true problem is that they have a product with a flaw that was touted as the coolest thing in phone design since caller ID.
It was a marketing department screw up -- any antenna designer will tell you that exposing the antenna like that is a stupid idea. But, the coolness factor won out and the engineers had to do what they were told.
I for one am glad that they're getting raked over the coals. Too many times we engineers are forced to go along with stupid ideas: its rare that the full consequences hit back at those making the decisions.
The only thing left for Apple to do to make me happy is to admit that they put a higher priority on making the phone "cool" than on making it functional. Jobs didn't do that today and probably never will.
I've had to go along with way too many of these types of decisions.... Maybe this will be a lesson to others in the future.
Third problem: how the bars are shown makes the attenuation even more noticeable to the user. How much of an issue would this have been with a different algorithm?
News flash: it's not just the government that's worried! In fact most of the attacks are on corporations as part of state-supported industrial espionage.
This isn't US propaganda, so put away that foil hat.
Nobody will use it. Using.xxx will allow every administrator to just wildcard block the.xxx domain, and I doubt its in the adult industry's best interest to use it.
That's not how the XXX marking has ever worked, and that's not how the.xxx will work.
Any site that has a.xxx will have a.com as well. The.xxx will serve as a promotion, just like it always has. There's no such thing as a XXX-rated movie: that was made up to grab people's attention. The same goes with.xxx -- it shows potential visitors just how hardcore they are.
Adult sites shouldn't care that the.xxx will be blocked the.com takes care of that, really.
If you're going to block.xxx, you probably have a very broad definition of porn.
A company, for instance, will want to block anything that could result in a lawsuit. That means blocking anything that someone might find tasteless.
Schools, with their "think of the children" mentality, have a similar attitude. They'll block anything that might not be appropriate for children. Bonus: medical sites probably won't fall under.xxx, so learning about breast cancer is still fine.
The very conservative/religious shudder at anything that shows more skin than a snow suit. Blocking.xxx is perfect for them.
If you don't fall under one of these categories, you probably won't be blocking.xxx anyway, so why does it matter who makes the definition?
As pointed out elsewhere,.com and friends will still have porn, so it's not as if the SI swimsuit edition will be forced onto.xxx -- it's all voluntary anyway. The people wanting to be on.xxx are the ones trying to promote their website as being pornographic. If you're blocking.xxx, your definition will definitely include almost every single site that gets blocked, guaranteed.
People complain that CEOs make so much money, but I think it's obvious that they're key to the company. A good CEO can bring a company from near failure to huge success. A bad CEO can do the exact opposite.
Ballmer isn't looking so hot right now -- and that means Microsoft is in a dangerous situation.
The user is not at fault! We are. The programmers. Why should they have to manually secure their networks at all?
Do you have to manually secure your connection to your bank's web portal? Why do we need extensions to fix security? Why is the email client sending passwords in the clear? Why is the wireless connection not encrypted by default?
Sure... most of this is because of old protocols or standards where it wasn't required. But here's the lesson: the days of ignoring security when programming are long overdue. New standards, new devices, new web sites, and new applications shouldn't be making these same mistakes. And old ones need to get with the times.
Slashdot Mirror
You, sir, just made me turn advertisements back on.
Slashdot thanks you.
I personally would love a citation on this, but only because I think it's an important point that needs to be backed up with evidence.
Wait ... so information wants to be "free as in beer" in the original quote.
That's completely backwards from how most people use the phrase.
You forgot: ++++AAA++++ WOULD BUY AGAIN!!!11
(p.s. Yes, Mr. Filter, I know all caps is like YELLING. That was the point.)
Which simply means that anti-circumvention is a redundant provision in the law. Infringing copyright is against the law either way, so why do we need another provision on top of that?
The solution to problems like this: encrypt all data in the cloud.
Unfortunately, this runs into the same problems as DRM: the cloud applications need the encryption key, which means that the cloud has access to unencrypted data at some point.
But at least exposure is limited to actively accessed data, right?
Other phrases:
- To call a spade a spade
- The pot calling the kettle black
- Black holes
- Water buffalo
- Tar baby
And this isn't just limited to racial slurs. Many "politically correct" euphemisms are there just to avoid a phrase that someone took offense at, even when the phrase was not originally offensive.
What this boils down to is people choosing to take offense. At that point, they're just making themselves look stupid and inviting further offense.
The only way we'll find a larger star is if you mom auditions for American Idol.
My work has a 5-min inactivity lockout policy.
As long as you're doing work, that's not all that bad. But I have two computers, alternating between them periodically (usually > 5 min, of course).
Having to type in my 20+ character password constantly has trained me to immediately stop what I'm doing and jiggle the mouse whenever the screensaver comes on (there's a couple second gap before the lock takes effect).
It gets worse when I'm jittery from too much sugar/caffeine.
My mom went to the gas station once back when the digital pay-at-the-pump systems first came out. But ... the thing simply wouldn't work. After pushing every button she could, she went to the attendant for help.
Of course, when they went back, everything was working fine.
It turned out she was wearing polarized sun glasses, which she then took off when she went inside to talk to the clerk.
I do not own an iPhone, nor any other smart phone ... mostly because it doesn't fit my lifestyle currently (I barely use the cell phone I have), which means I can't justify it financially.
However, I do have a couple Apple products, and I'll use them when they fit my needs. I don't buy them because they're "cool" but because they're the right device for the right time. And when it's not the right device, well ... see above.
I can't speak for anybody else, but my problem isn't with Apple itself, but with poor management in general. I've been burned too many times by poor management (who immediately get awards and promotions, of course) that I really, really want them to get slapped around every now and again.
Of course, that doesn't change your point. My ranting doesn't change my status as a customer one bit, so why should Apple care, in the end?
I probably shouldn't respond, but I do have a couple points to make. Let me quote first:
I ... am actually amazed that there aren't more antenna detuning and impedance-changing problems from body contact (or even close proximity).
I completely agree. In fact, I'd bet the engineers assigned with making this antenna work knew what they were up against, and then met the challenge head-on. They probably took special steps to tune the antenna knowing that a body would be touching it.
BTW, as an "engineer", you should also know that GOOD antenna design is HARD, and, the higher the frequency, the more critical the design, and more easily upset is the characteristic impedance.
Did I say otherwise? This is exactly why I have a hard time thinking that this was only a testing failure. RF engineers know just how sensitive their design is ... and they know how stupid it is to expose the antenna like on the iPhone.
So, really, there's only two options. Either the engineers were ignorant and their errors didn't come out until after release, or they were overruled. I actually know a few people who design (and research) antennas, and have a very hard time believing this was a simple oversight or testing failure.
By the way, why all the skepticism over me being an engineer? Would it help if I told you that I, too, have designed a 802.15.4 product (Zigbee, to be precise, and from scratch ... including the antenna, an experience I don't want to repeat)? Probably not.
The moral: Don't trust bars.
Jobs made this point by pointing out just how nonstandard the relationship is between bars and actual signal quality. Regardless, people have certain expectations on what the bars mean:
0 bars: no signal
1 bar: Can make a call, but it might drop if you move wrong
2 bars: OK connection, but don't go through a long underpass
3 bars: Steady connection, few problems if any
4+ bars: Great connection, no problems
The bars are a qualitative measurement, not quantitative.
Probably the biggest problem that with the iPhone was that someone could go from "Great connection" to "Might drop if I hop on one leg" just by holding it left-handed. Regardless of technical details, this is exactly why people made such a fuss.
The moral: make your bars trustworthy.
I don't trust their numbers, either.
Yeah, they're probably biased ... but the bigger problem is that they simply can't collect the right statistic without going through some extreme measures.
What we really want to know is "is the signal attenuation a problem to you?" The numbers they gave don't answer that question. Now, had they given the results of a properly done survey, I might trust it more.
But even then, there's too much emotion involved to get any sort of feeling for just how many people are effected.
The true problem is that they have a product with a flaw that was touted as the coolest thing in phone design since caller ID.
It was a marketing department screw up -- any antenna designer will tell you that exposing the antenna like that is a stupid idea. But, the coolness factor won out and the engineers had to do what they were told.
I for one am glad that they're getting raked over the coals. Too many times we engineers are forced to go along with stupid ideas: its rare that the full consequences hit back at those making the decisions.
The only thing left for Apple to do to make me happy is to admit that they put a higher priority on making the phone "cool" than on making it functional. Jobs didn't do that today and probably never will.
I've had to go along with way too many of these types of decisions.... Maybe this will be a lesson to others in the future.
Third problem: how the bars are shown makes the attenuation even more noticeable to the user. How much of an issue would this have been with a different algorithm?
News flash: it's not just the government that's worried! In fact most of the attacks are on corporations as part of state-supported industrial espionage.
This isn't US propaganda, so put away that foil hat.
That's because being in orbit is falling towards the ground but moving horizontally fast enough to miss.
So Douglas Adams was right after all!
On the other hand, no more lawyers or politicians, either. I'd call it a wash.
A decent credit score.
Nobody will use it. Using .xxx will allow every administrator to just wildcard block the .xxx domain, and I doubt its in the adult industry's best interest to use it.
That's not how the XXX marking has ever worked, and that's not how the .xxx will work.
Any site that has a .xxx will have a .com as well. The .xxx will serve as a promotion, just like it always has. There's no such thing as a XXX-rated movie: that was made up to grab people's attention. The same goes with .xxx -- it shows potential visitors just how hardcore they are.
Adult sites shouldn't care that the .xxx will be blocked the .com takes care of that, really.
If you're going to block .xxx, you probably have a very broad definition of porn.
A company, for instance, will want to block anything that could result in a lawsuit. That means blocking anything that someone might find tasteless.
Schools, with their "think of the children" mentality, have a similar attitude. They'll block anything that might not be appropriate for children. Bonus: medical sites probably won't fall under .xxx, so learning about breast cancer is still fine.
The very conservative/religious shudder at anything that shows more skin than a snow suit. Blocking .xxx is perfect for them.
If you don't fall under one of these categories, you probably won't be blocking .xxx anyway, so why does it matter who makes the definition?
As pointed out elsewhere, .com and friends will still have porn, so it's not as if the SI swimsuit edition will be forced onto .xxx -- it's all voluntary anyway. The people wanting to be on .xxx are the ones trying to promote their website as being pornographic. If you're blocking .xxx, your definition will definitely include almost every single site that gets blocked, guaranteed.
A lifetime spent in prison isn't so easily taken back, either.
It's not the company, really, its the leadership.
People complain that CEOs make so much money, but I think it's obvious that they're key to the company. A good CEO can bring a company from near failure to huge success. A bad CEO can do the exact opposite.
Ballmer isn't looking so hot right now -- and that means Microsoft is in a dangerous situation.
The user is not at fault! We are. The programmers. Why should they have to manually secure their networks at all?
Do you have to manually secure your connection to your bank's web portal? Why do we need extensions to fix security? Why is the email client sending passwords in the clear? Why is the wireless connection not encrypted by default?
Sure ... most of this is because of old protocols or standards where it wasn't required. But here's the lesson: the days of ignoring security when programming are long overdue. New standards, new devices, new web sites, and new applications shouldn't be making these same mistakes. And old ones need to get with the times.
Fixing this is our job, not the user's.