I hear this out of OSS fans all the time. Lots of eyeballs = greater security. If that's the case then Microsoft is more secure. People aren't looking at the code for the kernel, okay, but hundreds of thousands of systems are monitored and tested regularly. Most security threats on Microsoft systems are found because there are lots of eyeballs looking for holes. I'd say even more than the Linux community has on their favorite flavor of distro. Why does the more eyeballs approach to security suddenly work so much better when it's whitebox instead of dark? It's also worth mentioning that in the past, the few times when Microsoft hasn't issued a patch in a timely manner another company has stepped in and provided a solution. So yes. To get back to the point of this entire thread, somebody else with vested interest in the system can provide solutions to security problems on a Microsoft system. There's more than one way to skin a cat sir.
I digress though. That wasn't the point of my post in the first place. You were condescending anon guy for stating that some random guy on the net providing a patch isn't always the best solution, and doing it in a completely inane fashion by telling him that the kernel team can veto a patch. This is contrary to the entire foundation of FOSS. People can change the code as they see fit. The kernel team can't veto any single user's changes. Are you honestly a supporter of FOSS? Or are you rather just someone who spites the majority?
There still lies the problem that claiming that writing about these programs, intentions or not, means they're guilty of those who use the information's crimes.
CC's have had PINs the entire time here in Canada. Probably everywhere else too. When those machines first came out, I would have people yelling at me that I was wrong and their card never had a PIN ever. This happened more often than you think. So many of them want me too just 'punch it in manually'. I just say we're not equipped for it.
Money transactions should never be made convenient. This transition we're experiencing into chip+pin in Canada has made me realize that more now than ever before.
People are not inherently lazy. Civilization would not have made it this far if we were. It is an environmental effect that has been created by us; Not one of inheritance. People have been trained to be lazy.
You can't do what is already done if you want to change the face of things as we know it. Before google, everyone was spending as much time as they could in their favorite portals. Google decided people should spend less time searching the web. This was contrary to what was being observed. They had a vision that was unseen so far. This is what real disrupting technology is. Not some trivial application
I can't wait for them to fully unload google voice on the world. TV could have a chance but i'm not impressed yet. Instant has changed the way I search dramatically already. They are constantly disrupting the market and this is what I love about them
This isn't true at all. Our 'Privacy Commissioner' confronted FB last year, but that got us no where. They still sell and make our personal data available to anyone who buys it. Personally, I think somehow they staged the whole report to make it look like officials are taking care of business. The changes that the canadian government worked with FB to make were those dumb privacy controls that are available in every country. They are complicated and constantly changing and are rarely understood by people. Thanks for that Canadian government.. i guess?
The real reason is probably more technical than political.
Society already is in the habit of calling delayed broadcasts live. Anything you see on tv that is called a Live Broadcast actually has quite a bit of latency involved in the signal. I would say in the norm of 3 seconds. Ever since the superbowl nipple shinanigans I believe they've increased this artificially for many big events.
I would probably buy the kinect if there were games called gears of violence for it. All i see though is kinectwiiclones and danceorama. it's kind of a disappointing launch to be honest.
This tool is targeted towards network administrators, not individual users. It's a threat diagnostic tool, not a prevention. You can't make everyone on your network suddenly be a guru of security. That's the admin's job. Writing this off as useless is ignorant.
I think you're over reacting about Video on the web, and I can't understand how anything about what you've said is insightful. None of those pages really tell me anything about what the browser really does. Most of it is buzz words, but I guess if thats informative for you.. Also it only took me a split second to find the user guide on flock's page.
I worked at walmart the year mp3 discmans dropped. They took off. They outsold regular discmans 2 to 1. The zen was selling reasonably well. They were definatly not failing before the ipod, and they weren't doing badly either. Sure this was all in the confines of one store, but there wasn't exactly a huge marketing drive behind these devices. The local public just picked these things up because it was obvious they were the next big thing.
Apple was in a good position to offer everything that the market needed to grow. They had a brand. They created the itunes store. They fenced this all in because it was obvious that this was a growing market.
Flock isn't exactly getting used well. People aren't 'buying' it more than the regular browsers. Sure it's obvious that social web is a growing market, though a new browser specific for social media is a fundamental misunderstanding of what that market is. Websites that aggregate all your social media are flooding the landscape. They're much more accessible to people than downloading and installing new software is.
Considering that the browser is made for people who mostly use sites like facebook; Yes, Really! Requiring a facebook account to receive an invite is a perfectly reasonable way to target the correct audience.
Don't get me wrong. I'm sure this product will crash and burn. Most browsers are made to appeal to the entirety of the web. Browsers that appeal to only one portion of the web ever be niche (flock). The fact that there's a business strategy backing this one makes the whole thing reek of failure to me.
Google could make the GTV box identical to a regular PC as far as the internet is concerned. Only their servers would be given permissions to identify an account being accessed through a GTV box. This would of course mean you would have to sign in to use GTV but this could be made mostly transparent. Upon visiting a website, if that site wishes to display content formatted specifically for GTV, then they simply access a public API and find out from Google themselves.
Plagiarism is a moral understanding, not a legal definition. You can have both copyright infringement AND plagiarism happening at the same time.
The steps cannot be copyright protected. Yes. The original work outlining those steps can be. The arrangement of those steps is that work. The product of this recipe can also be considered original work and copyright as well. If I were to make a recipe for a basic apple pie, of course I cannot copyright the apple pie. If I come up with an original work however, then create a recipe for it, I own both the original creative work, as well as the arrangement of the recipe that I publish.
You're misunderstanding what parts of a recipe can and can't be copyright protected.
You're right saying that the steps to reach a goal are not IP. You're wrong however in claiming that writing the article word for word which contains these steps is not IP. They are. The lines are further destroyed by the fact that the product created by those steps is an original creative work.
Lets say I wrote an article on how to change a tire. You cannot copy that article word for word. It's plagerism. I don't own the steps but I own the words. Lets say I wrote an article on how to create a special prototype tire that I came up with. Even though I outlined the steps to create it, I still own the design of that special prototype. The steps to create it in this case are not the part being copyrighted, but rather the design itself is. Using these progressive cases as examples, it's now a short leap to understanding why an original recipe is in fact IP
Hahaha
http://xkcd.com/612
Seriously though. A jury of peers decided these amounts. Average American citizens of course. Except for the lowest, slightly less unreasonable amount, which was decided by a seasoned Judge.
You're also forgetting that when you shoplift, you're taking something away from the shop. What happens when you copy a song? Does the record company lose that copy of the song, never to get it back? Their is absolutely no material value to it.
Slashdot Mirror
I digress though. That wasn't the point of my post in the first place. You were condescending anon guy for stating that some random guy on the net providing a patch isn't always the best solution, and doing it in a completely inane fashion by telling him that the kernel team can veto a patch. This is contrary to the entire foundation of FOSS. People can change the code as they see fit. The kernel team can't veto any single user's changes. Are you honestly a supporter of FOSS? Or are you rather just someone who spites the majority?
Well, you do understand that the kernel maintainers actually vet patches before including them, don't you?
Well, you do understand that open source means anyone can download a patch and actually apply it, don't you?
There still lies the problem that claiming that writing about these programs, intentions or not, means they're guilty of those who use the information's crimes.
No. Probably 20%
Kind of like open social has already been doing?
CC's have had PINs the entire time here in Canada. Probably everywhere else too. When those machines first came out, I would have people yelling at me that I was wrong and their card never had a PIN ever. This happened more often than you think. So many of them want me too just 'punch it in manually'. I just say we're not equipped for it.
Money transactions should never be made convenient. This transition we're experiencing into chip+pin in Canada has made me realize that more now than ever before.
People are not inherently lazy. Civilization would not have made it this far if we were. It is an environmental effect that has been created by us; Not one of inheritance. People have been trained to be lazy.
You can't do what is already done if you want to change the face of things as we know it. Before google, everyone was spending as much time as they could in their favorite portals. Google decided people should spend less time searching the web. This was contrary to what was being observed. They had a vision that was unseen so far. This is what real disrupting technology is. Not some trivial application
I can't wait for them to fully unload google voice on the world. TV could have a chance but i'm not impressed yet. Instant has changed the way I search dramatically already. They are constantly disrupting the market and this is what I love about them
Ah that is scary indeed to think about. What would the world be like if grandma's were replaced by corporate networks?
This isn't true at all. Our 'Privacy Commissioner' confronted FB last year, but that got us no where. They still sell and make our personal data available to anyone who buys it. Personally, I think somehow they staged the whole report to make it look like officials are taking care of business. The changes that the canadian government worked with FB to make were those dumb privacy controls that are available in every country. They are complicated and constantly changing and are rarely understood by people. Thanks for that Canadian government.. i guess?
The real reason is probably more technical than political.
Not true. Wave was about making communication more efficient. Work getting done more effectively was a side effect
Society already is in the habit of calling delayed broadcasts live. Anything you see on tv that is called a Live Broadcast actually has quite a bit of latency involved in the signal. I would say in the norm of 3 seconds. Ever since the superbowl nipple shinanigans I believe they've increased this artificially for many big events.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Holes_and_Time_Warps Cited. The only theories that describe traversable wormholes must involve 'exotic' matter. AKA matter with impossible properties.
http://www.sega-16.com/feature_page.php?id=186&title=The%20Sega%20Channel:%20The%20First%20Real%20%22Downloadable%22%20Content
A friend of mine had this and there were games that came out in weekly episodes.
I would probably buy the kinect if there were games called gears of violence for it. All i see though is kinectwiiclones and danceorama. it's kind of a disappointing launch to be honest.
I thought EFF extension was the greater of the two, but now we know that it could be getting used by the enemy for greater exploit? Classic.
This tool is targeted towards network administrators, not individual users. It's a threat diagnostic tool, not a prevention. You can't make everyone on your network suddenly be a guru of security. That's the admin's job. Writing this off as useless is ignorant.
This link is on Opera's main page: http://www.opera.com/browser/#video-intro
This link is on IE's main page: http://www.microsoft.com/windows/internet-explorer/videos.aspx
This link is on Chrome's main page: http://www.google.com/chrome/intl/en/more/index.html (same one you provided, except you didn't notice that each bullet point is an simple intro to a provided video)
I think you're over reacting about Video on the web, and I can't understand how anything about what you've said is insightful. None of those pages really tell me anything about what the browser really does. Most of it is buzz words, but I guess if thats informative for you.. Also it only took me a split second to find the user guide on flock's page.
I worked at walmart the year mp3 discmans dropped. They took off. They outsold regular discmans 2 to 1. The zen was selling reasonably well. They were definatly not failing before the ipod, and they weren't doing badly either. Sure this was all in the confines of one store, but there wasn't exactly a huge marketing drive behind these devices. The local public just picked these things up because it was obvious they were the next big thing.
Apple was in a good position to offer everything that the market needed to grow. They had a brand. They created the itunes store. They fenced this all in because it was obvious that this was a growing market.
Flock isn't exactly getting used well. People aren't 'buying' it more than the regular browsers. Sure it's obvious that social web is a growing market, though a new browser specific for social media is a fundamental misunderstanding of what that market is. Websites that aggregate all your social media are flooding the landscape. They're much more accessible to people than downloading and installing new software is.
Considering that the browser is made for people who mostly use sites like facebook; Yes, Really! Requiring a facebook account to receive an invite is a perfectly reasonable way to target the correct audience.
Don't get me wrong. I'm sure this product will crash and burn. Most browsers are made to appeal to the entirety of the web. Browsers that appeal to only one portion of the web ever be niche (flock). The fact that there's a business strategy backing this one makes the whole thing reek of failure to me.
Google could make the GTV box identical to a regular PC as far as the internet is concerned. Only their servers would be given permissions to identify an account being accessed through a GTV box. This would of course mean you would have to sign in to use GTV but this could be made mostly transparent. Upon visiting a website, if that site wishes to display content formatted specifically for GTV, then they simply access a public API and find out from Google themselves.
Plagiarism is a moral understanding, not a legal definition. You can have both copyright infringement AND plagiarism happening at the same time.
The steps cannot be copyright protected. Yes. The original work outlining those steps can be. The arrangement of those steps is that work. The product of this recipe can also be considered original work and copyright as well. If I were to make a recipe for a basic apple pie, of course I cannot copyright the apple pie. If I come up with an original work however, then create a recipe for it, I own both the original creative work, as well as the arrangement of the recipe that I publish.
You're misunderstanding what parts of a recipe can and can't be copyright protected.
You're right saying that the steps to reach a goal are not IP. You're wrong however in claiming that writing the article word for word which contains these steps is not IP. They are. The lines are further destroyed by the fact that the product created by those steps is an original creative work.
Lets say I wrote an article on how to change a tire. You cannot copy that article word for word. It's plagerism. I don't own the steps but I own the words. Lets say I wrote an article on how to create a special prototype tire that I came up with. Even though I outlined the steps to create it, I still own the design of that special prototype. The steps to create it in this case are not the part being copyrighted, but rather the design itself is. Using these progressive cases as examples, it's now a short leap to understanding why an original recipe is in fact IP
Hahaha http://xkcd.com/612 Seriously though. A jury of peers decided these amounts. Average American citizens of course. Except for the lowest, slightly less unreasonable amount, which was decided by a seasoned Judge.
You're also forgetting that when you shoplift, you're taking something away from the shop. What happens when you copy a song? Does the record company lose that copy of the song, never to get it back? Their is absolutely no material value to it.