I think the question is less "how can they stop compressing older stuff" and more "how are they going to reduce commercial time when there's no extra bits of actual show to use to fill time?" All I can think is that they'll reduce the ad slot in the middle of the episode and bulk up the one after the credits, when nobody pays attention anyway.
because a problem with a couch is much less likely to be either dangerous to life/limb or expensive to business processes, is my guess. All the cases where software security (heck, IT security) is getting significant press are cases where it's potentially lethal (medical stuff, cars) or expensive (in money or some other prized commodity, like privacy... but mostly money)
actually, turn the question around: "Can your servers be less secure than the cloud?" That's pretty much got to be "yes", though it would be rather embarassing.
actually, they're not. TFA does not use the word abuse; that was injected by the submitter or editor. MS described the use of 75TB as an "extreme backup scenario"
people read the subject? I just get confused when the first sentence of the post is incomplete and downgrade my impression of the poster's ability to write.
1 and 4 together make me think that the author is saying that shill is completely irrelevant to privacy and the rest of plaid is just as private as advertised. The problem is that while shill may have been intended as a bolt-on to distract and slow attackers, it apparently also can be used to do the tracking that the rest of plaid was designed to avoid. The author claims that's not a problem because it wasn't designed to be private, but the end effect seems to be that the card is more trackable than intended. A better implementation of the shillkey could help with this, but is not required by the standard nor implemented by the reference, so how many commodity hardware makers are going to bother?
Pretty much everywhere I've seen that phrase, the labor and materials would factor into "cheap" and the side effects would factor into "better". The exceptions are marketing materials, unsurprisingly, where "cheap" and "better" apply only to the direct impact on the purchaser.
as I recall, dark matter is required less to explain the universe overall (dark energy gets that role, to explain expansion beyond what we'd predict without it) and more to explain why galaxies can rotate as fast as they do without breaking up, which takes more gravitational force than we can see sources for. So while I totally agree that we haven't really thoroughly surveyed the universe, we have been fairly thorough about some galaxies.
sure. Anyone who wants to set up a public search service is free to scan whatever material they need to populate it. Note that this is not the same as getting to read the whole book yourself; that is not a necessary step in running a search service.
According to TFA, only NY has a law against hands free driving. I think pretty much everywhere else assumes that driving hands free is going to lead you into something else that's already illegal.
That's because they're prioritizing the "attack" part of their mission over the "defend" part of their mission. Not unusual; defense is far less exciting.
no, he's saying the people who put up with a bad experience using DRM products are less computer savy than the ones who will use non-DRM stuff for the convenience whether they purchase the DRM product or not.
it seems like you're saying that "insufficient sleep/caffeine + stress" == impaired. Is that correct? Because if so, there's a lot more impaired drivers than I think you think there are. If you're using some other definition of impaired, I'm not sure what it is or how it relates to my post. Can you please clarify?
I dunno. It doesn't have to do better than me when I'm doing well as long as it can do better than me when I'm not doing well (didn't sleep well, haven't had food or coffee yet, and worried about getting stuff done). That's not a terribly high bar.
How should they measure performance on the road, then? The only way I can think of would be for them to instrument all their cars and have them send data back, which would cause a serious uproar.
I do expect to profit by working. But I accept that it is possible for situations to change to the point where what I do is no longer profitable, at which point I have to go find something else to do. Why can't they?
or, put differently, the fact that they currently exist does not obligate the world to continue to make that existence meaningful.
Slashdot Mirror
I think the question is less "how can they stop compressing older stuff" and more "how are they going to reduce commercial time when there's no extra bits of actual show to use to fill time?" All I can think is that they'll reduce the ad slot in the middle of the episode and bulk up the one after the credits, when nobody pays attention anyway.
but protecting profits is a _means_, not an _end_. In this case there is evidence that we're pushing the means to the detriment of the end.
because a problem with a couch is much less likely to be either dangerous to life/limb or expensive to business processes, is my guess. All the cases where software security (heck, IT security) is getting significant press are cases where it's potentially lethal (medical stuff, cars) or expensive (in money or some other prized commodity, like privacy... but mostly money)
actually, turn the question around: "Can your servers be less secure than the cloud?" That's pretty much got to be "yes", though it would be rather embarassing.
I think they're figuring "a package with a gigabit can take one tenth of the space of a gigabit of dram, because stacking"
actually, they're not. TFA does not use the word abuse; that was injected by the submitter or editor. MS described the use of 75TB as an "extreme backup scenario"
people read the subject? I just get confused when the first sentence of the post is incomplete and downgrade my impression of the poster's ability to write.
1 and 4 together make me think that the author is saying that shill is completely irrelevant to privacy and the rest of plaid is just as private as advertised. The problem is that while shill may have been intended as a bolt-on to distract and slow attackers, it apparently also can be used to do the tracking that the rest of plaid was designed to avoid. The author claims that's not a problem because it wasn't designed to be private, but the end effect seems to be that the card is more trackable than intended. A better implementation of the shillkey could help with this, but is not required by the standard nor implemented by the reference, so how many commodity hardware makers are going to bother?
those are per-year figures
Hmmm. I was under the impression that they were targeting users based on how many other users received parts from them. Thanks for the correction!
Not according to the MPAA and RIAA; it's per act of distribution.
Pretty much everywhere I've seen that phrase, the labor and materials would factor into "cheap" and the side effects would factor into "better". The exceptions are marketing materials, unsurprisingly, where "cheap" and "better" apply only to the direct impact on the purchaser.
as I recall, dark matter is required less to explain the universe overall (dark energy gets that role, to explain expansion beyond what we'd predict without it) and more to explain why galaxies can rotate as fast as they do without breaking up, which takes more gravitational force than we can see sources for. So while I totally agree that we haven't really thoroughly surveyed the universe, we have been fairly thorough about some galaxies.
find wife, grab gear, move into library. Duh!
sure. Anyone who wants to set up a public search service is free to scan whatever material they need to populate it. Note that this is not the same as getting to read the whole book yourself; that is not a necessary step in running a search service.
depends if you want more of them.
According to TFA, only NY has a law against hands free driving. I think pretty much everywhere else assumes that driving hands free is going to lead you into something else that's already illegal.
they can tell Oracle to sod off, but telling the DOJ to sod off when Oracle reports them for using stolen software is a bit dicier.
That's because they're prioritizing the "attack" part of their mission over the "defend" part of their mission. Not unusual; defense is far less exciting.
they can spin it as an enhancement to the format instead of a restriction on the user
no, he's saying the people who put up with a bad experience using DRM products are less computer savy than the ones who will use non-DRM stuff for the convenience whether they purchase the DRM product or not.
it seems like you're saying that "insufficient sleep/caffeine + stress" == impaired. Is that correct? Because if so, there's a lot more impaired drivers than I think you think there are. If you're using some other definition of impaired, I'm not sure what it is or how it relates to my post. Can you please clarify?
I dunno. It doesn't have to do better than me when I'm doing well as long as it can do better than me when I'm not doing well (didn't sleep well, haven't had food or coffee yet, and worried about getting stuff done). That's not a terribly high bar.
How should they measure performance on the road, then? The only way I can think of would be for them to instrument all their cars and have them send data back, which would cause a serious uproar.
I do expect to profit by working. But I accept that it is possible for situations to change to the point where what I do is no longer profitable, at which point I have to go find something else to do. Why can't they?
or, put differently, the fact that they currently exist does not obligate the world to continue to make that existence meaningful.