"Instead of spending the majority of their money on traditional print and television advertising, companies with established brand associations such as Apple may want to give serious consideration to shifting more marketing resources to product placement opportunities and other forms of outreach that emphasize brief brand exposures," Gavan Fitzsimons said.
Does not follow. The map is not the territory. Assuming that the fundamental research is correct, it's the established marketing that created the associations they're measuring. They might as well suggest that people lose weight by moving to the moon - they're confusing the technique they're using to measure an effect with the effect itself.
It's not popularity that gives Windows such a vigorous viral ecosystem. It's Internet Explorer and "Active Content" and merging the desktop and the browser. In 1997 the virus situation on Windows went from something not much different from any other platform to something insane, all thanks to applications using COM and the HTML control, particularly Outlook and Explorer. Before then the very idea that software would even provide a mechanism to run untrusted code outside a sandbox... no matter how that mechanism was hedged about with security dialogs and warnings... was just bad science fiction. Nobody in the security business believed anyone could be so stupid as to implement that. I mean there was a virus hoax going around about a virus that could run just by *opening an email message*. It was a joke.
Then Microsoft implemented it.
This is such a fundamental design flaw that even the horrible security flaws that Safari seems to have borrowed from IE (like the idea of running installers after you download them) pale to insignificance in comparison. Hell, it makes Firefox's daft XPI installer seem sane.
Until Apple invents something as insanely stupid as this, I wouldn't worry too much.
Except I was naive enough to follow their advice, and it hosed our domain server. So when I called them back they wanted me to crack my wallet before they would fix the problem they caused. I sent through several levels of supervisors and finally got someone to promise to call me back... then I did what I should have done in the first place and checked online (Usenet, this was before Google) and had everything fixed and working by the time they got back to me.
The case worker, who may have to do three or four emotionally draining interviews in one day, cannot be expected to remember all the facts accurately enough for (for example) legal proceedings to remove a child from parents. Tha alternative to USB keys is probably printout, pen and paper. And how secure is t that? At least USB keys can be encrypted.
So they're sticking these thumb drives in computers owned by the people they are investigating?
Or they have no way to securely store information on their own laptops?
What exactly is the scenario you're envisioning here?
I was thinking more along the lines of rendering white or pink noise directly onto the image, either directly or by applying a randomized convolution to the whole thing.
There appear to be a number of balls in the "OFF" picture that do not appear in the "ON" picture, further up the hill than the ditch. To make it easier to find the differences I aligned the images and applied a false color mask using red and green overlays for the two images:
on any other platform... this would be called a security vulnerability
No it bloody wouldn't. It would be called "of course you can install your own firmware on an iPaq, or a Treo, or what have you". It would be called "why shouldn't you be able to install programs on your own handset". It would be called "yes, of course that's the way it works".
Of course it's a good thing. Of course it's also a waste of time. Of course you're better off getting a phone where you don't have to screw around looking for DRM backdoors. What I can't figure is how anybody who knows it's a waste of time could possibly be stupid enough to honestly think "this would be called a security vulnerability". Right?
I'm not sure how knowledge of metaphors is supposed to handle reduced energy consumption.
I'm not sure how cheap shots do either. No matter who they're made by.
I'm unsure why a large part of the world seems content to use up all of the world's resources in a fraction of the span of our recorded history.
It's called "The Tragedy of the Commons". A reference that comes from a bloke named William Lloyd. You might also have a look at the writings of a feller by the name of Malthus.
The basic point is, if there's only X years of oil and Y years of uranium in the ground, fission provides Y more years to find and implement the next high density energy source. Conservation changes the value of X+Y, but it doesn't change the fact that X and Y are smaller than infinity.
Not so much because it's fun, but because the things that are fun are easier than in other platforms, and the things that are not fun can more easily be avoided... and "fun" rarely means "being able to break it in interesting ways", usually it's something largely unrelated to the operating system itself, but the operating system makes it easier to get there.
Linux, like any other UNIX variant, scratches this itch in proportion to the quality of its UNIX implementation, and inversely in proportion to the places where it fails to be a quality UNIX implementation. I don't care so much whether the UNIX environment I'm using is labeled Linux, BSD, SunOS, Solaris, OS X, Cygwin, Interix, BeOS, SCO Xenix, Microsoft Xenix, AIX, HPUX, OpenVMS, or Eunice. I care about how much un-fun stuff I have to go through to get to the fun stuff.
The English language has an advanced technology known as "metaphor". It's related to the "simile" and the "analogy". It's really worthwhile taking the time to become familiar with it.
We haven't gotten technical breakeven (let alone economic breakeven) but we've gotten power, yes.
we have gotten power from thorium, using a combined U/TH fuel.
I'm not sure what you're getting at here. Thorium reactors are fission reactors, burning U233 produced from Thorium 232. They're not an "alternative" to fission, nor an exotic power source, they're a variant breeder reactor.
But the people being sued didn't steal "the song", they didn't steal anything, they made an unauthorized copy of it. Their liability is limited to the value of that copy... and if the CD sold out then they didn't even cut into the sales of that CD, so what's their liability then?
If you can indeed prove that they were the original source of the CD and that all hundred thousand downloads were due to them and not to any of the other 99,999 people on said P2P network, you might have a case, but you know perfectly well that that's *not* the case, and that in most cases the people who are being sued aren't even the ones who ripped teh CD in the first place?
You know that, right? If you don't... are you a fool, a dupe, or a shill?
In my previous system administration job one of the managers got some kind of deal on a big box of encrypted memory sticks - something like 100 sticks - that we put into our pool of thumb drives our engineers used for transferring configuration files and the like. We never used the encryption technology (among other things, embedded controllers don't have the ability to run Windows executables to read the password), instead we configured them as one big open partition. Unfortunately they were particularly sensitive to being damaged if they were pulled out without unmounting the partition - possibly due to the added complexity of the encryption technology. When that happened, unlike normal sticks, they were trashed. You couldn't reformat them, and contacting the company to find out how to securely erase them led me through a maze of red tape, ending up with a demand that we send them a registered letter on company letterhead from the CEO to authorize us to receive a copy of the secure formatting program. This was duly sent but turned out to be a dead end: they never contacted us or responded to further contacts.
It's possible that they had no such program, or that the program was something like the one described here and they didn't want to let the cat out of the bag. We quit using these sticks, they were just too fragile to be worth the hassles.
I don't think that's what he meant by "each song costs thousands of dollars".
I'll pay fifteen bucks for a CD, no problem. But if someone copies that CD instead of buying it that's only fifteen bucks, not 9,000 times however many tracks are on the CD, which is what the RIAA is demanding. They're better off shoplifting it: the fines are unlikely to be more than a few hundred dollars.
All we-all don't steal^H^H^H^H^Hmake unauthorized copies of music, nohow, podner. And whether we-all do or not, the RIAA's behavior is downright ornery. They're a mad dog, boy, and need to be put down.
Conservation and increased efficiency aren't a replacement technology for fossil fuels, though they may draw out the tail of the oil supply.
I love the idea of orbital photovoltaic, but 20 years? Maybe, if the safety and delivery problems are really as minor as they say, but it's hardly a sure thing.
As for exotic nuclear technologies... the basic science has been done for fusion too, and it's been 20 years of "just engineering" for more than 20 years now.
Do you REALLY think we're in any position to ignore ANY technology?
Slashdot Mirror
What Would Feynman Do?
Does not follow. The map is not the territory. Assuming that the fundamental research is correct, it's the established marketing that created the associations they're measuring. They might as well suggest that people lose weight by moving to the moon - they're confusing the technique they're using to measure an effect with the effect itself.
It's not popularity that gives Windows such a vigorous viral ecosystem. It's Internet Explorer and "Active Content" and merging the desktop and the browser. In 1997 the virus situation on Windows went from something not much different from any other platform to something insane, all thanks to applications using COM and the HTML control, particularly Outlook and Explorer. Before then the very idea that software would even provide a mechanism to run untrusted code outside a sandbox ... no matter how that mechanism was hedged about with security dialogs and warnings ... was just bad science fiction. Nobody in the security business believed anyone could be so stupid as to implement that. I mean there was a virus hoax going around about a virus that could run just by *opening an email message*. It was a joke.
Then Microsoft implemented it.
This is such a fundamental design flaw that even the horrible security flaws that Safari seems to have borrowed from IE (like the idea of running installers after you download them) pale to insignificance in comparison. Hell, it makes Firefox's daft XPI installer seem sane.
Until Apple invents something as insanely stupid as this, I wouldn't worry too much.
Except I was naive enough to follow their advice, and it hosed our domain server. So when I called them back they wanted me to crack my wallet before they would fix the problem they caused. I sent through several levels of supervisors and finally got someone to promise to call me back... then I did what I should have done in the first place and checked online (Usenet, this was before Google) and had everything fixed and working by the time they got back to me.
The case worker, who may have to do three or four emotionally draining interviews in one day, cannot be expected to remember all the facts accurately enough for (for example) legal proceedings to remove a child from parents. Tha alternative to USB keys is probably printout, pen and paper. And how secure is t that? At least USB keys can be encrypted.
So they're sticking these thumb drives in computers owned by the people they are investigating?
Or they have no way to securely store information on their own laptops?
What exactly is the scenario you're envisioning here?
What happened to the previous iTunes patent suit, anyway?
I was thinking more along the lines of rendering white or pink noise directly onto the image, either directly or by applying a randomized convolution to the whole thing.
There appear to be a number of balls in the "OFF" picture that do not appear in the "ON" picture, further up the hill than the ditch. To make it easier to find the differences I aligned the images and applied a false color mask using red and green overlays for the two images:
http://scarydevil.com/~peter/images/Extra-balls-in-OFF.png
http://scarydevil.com/~peter/images/OFF-plus-false-color.png
http://scarydevil.com/~peter/images/ON-plus-false-color.png
That's another approach, how well does it do when the manipulator layered noise over the image.
on any other platform... this would be called a security vulnerability
No it bloody wouldn't. It would be called "of course you can install your own firmware on an iPaq, or a Treo, or what have you". It would be called "why shouldn't you be able to install programs on your own handset". It would be called "yes, of course that's the way it works".
Of course it's a good thing. Of course it's also a waste of time. Of course you're better off getting a phone where you don't have to screw around looking for DRM backdoors. What I can't figure is how anybody who knows it's a waste of time could possibly be stupid enough to honestly think "this would be called a security vulnerability". Right?
I'm not sure how knowledge of metaphors is supposed to handle reduced energy consumption.
I'm not sure how cheap shots do either. No matter who they're made by.
I'm unsure why a large part of the world seems content to use up all of the world's resources in a fraction of the span of our recorded history.
It's called "The Tragedy of the Commons". A reference that comes from a bloke named William Lloyd. You might also have a look at the writings of a feller by the name of Malthus.
The basic point is, if there's only X years of oil and Y years of uranium in the ground, fission provides Y more years to find and implement the next high density energy source. Conservation changes the value of X+Y, but it doesn't change the fact that X and Y are smaller than infinity.
The result of the lawsuit that led to this one was that the plaintiff had not, in fact, "ripped off music".
For every problem there is a solution that is easy, simple, and wrong. This is one of them.
Not so much because it's fun, but because the things that are fun are easier than in other platforms, and the things that are not fun can more easily be avoided... and "fun" rarely means "being able to break it in interesting ways", usually it's something largely unrelated to the operating system itself, but the operating system makes it easier to get there.
Linux, like any other UNIX variant, scratches this itch in proportion to the quality of its UNIX implementation, and inversely in proportion to the places where it fails to be a quality UNIX implementation. I don't care so much whether the UNIX environment I'm using is labeled Linux, BSD, SunOS, Solaris, OS X, Cygwin, Interix, BeOS, SCO Xenix, Microsoft Xenix, AIX, HPUX, OpenVMS, or Eunice. I care about how much un-fun stuff I have to go through to get to the fun stuff.
The English language has an advanced technology known as "metaphor". It's related to the "simile" and the "analogy". It's really worthwhile taking the time to become familiar with it.
We've never gotten power out a fusion reactor
We haven't gotten technical breakeven (let alone economic breakeven) but we've gotten power, yes.
we have gotten power from thorium, using a combined U/TH fuel.
I'm not sure what you're getting at here. Thorium reactors are fission reactors, burning U233 produced from Thorium 232. They're not an "alternative" to fission, nor an exotic power source, they're a variant breeder reactor.
But the people being sued didn't steal "the song", they didn't steal anything, they made an unauthorized copy of it. Their liability is limited to the value of that copy... and if the CD sold out then they didn't even cut into the sales of that CD, so what's their liability then?
If you can indeed prove that they were the original source of the CD and that all hundred thousand downloads were due to them and not to any of the other 99,999 people on said P2P network, you might have a case, but you know perfectly well that that's *not* the case, and that in most cases the people who are being sued aren't even the ones who ripped teh CD in the first place?
You know that, right? If you don't... are you a fool, a dupe, or a shill?
In my previous system administration job one of the managers got some kind of deal on a big box of encrypted memory sticks - something like 100 sticks - that we put into our pool of thumb drives our engineers used for transferring configuration files and the like. We never used the encryption technology (among other things, embedded controllers don't have the ability to run Windows executables to read the password), instead we configured them as one big open partition. Unfortunately they were particularly sensitive to being damaged if they were pulled out without unmounting the partition - possibly due to the added complexity of the encryption technology. When that happened, unlike normal sticks, they were trashed. You couldn't reformat them, and contacting the company to find out how to securely erase them led me through a maze of red tape, ending up with a demand that we send them a registered letter on company letterhead from the CEO to authorize us to receive a copy of the secure formatting program. This was duly sent but turned out to be a dead end: they never contacted us or responded to further contacts.
It's possible that they had no such program, or that the program was something like the one described here and they didn't want to let the cat out of the bag. We quit using these sticks, they were just too fragile to be worth the hassles.
I don't think that's what he meant by "each song costs thousands of dollars".
I'll pay fifteen bucks for a CD, no problem. But if someone copies that CD instead of buying it that's only fifteen bucks, not 9,000 times however many tracks are on the CD, which is what the RIAA is demanding. They're better off shoplifting it: the fines are unlikely to be more than a few hundred dollars.
All we-all don't steal^H^H^H^H^Hmake unauthorized copies of music, nohow, podner. And whether we-all do or not, the RIAA's behavior is downright ornery. They're a mad dog, boy, and need to be put down.
Conservation and increased efficiency aren't a replacement technology for fossil fuels, though they may draw out the tail of the oil supply.
I love the idea of orbital photovoltaic, but 20 years? Maybe, if the safety and delivery problems are really as minor as they say, but it's hardly a sure thing.
As for exotic nuclear technologies... the basic science has been done for fusion too, and it's been 20 years of "just engineering" for more than 20 years now.
Do you REALLY think we're in any position to ignore ANY technology?
And if it takes a century to develop the replacement technology, do we freeze in the meantime?
If they have a four year old on the main grid doesn't that violate the SL terms of service? :)
http://www.terrybisson.com/meat.html
Actually, I'd be happy with Permutation City. Just get me out of this crazy chunk of meat.