I haven't heard about prosecutions, but I have heard of Apple banning apps from the app store, disabling apps that people already purchased, and bricking iPhones that were modified to allow running of non-Apple approved software.
I never said I cared if modifying an iPhone in ways not envisioned or endorsed by Apple voided the warranty. I said that I cared that I can't do it at all, without jailbreaking the phone. I do NOT need to jailbreak a car to drill mounting holes in the frame. I just pull out a drill and drill the holes. I don't need to do anything special to gain permission from the manufacturer to drill the holes.
It's my property, I decide to drill holes, I drill the holes, and no one tells me I'm no longer allowed to drive the car because I drilled some unauthorized holes in it.
If my holes weaken the frame member and causes frame failure, I'm SOL getting it fixed under warranty. If I'm stupid and drill holes through the engine block, I'm paying for the new engine out of pocket.
Even so, drilling holes in the fender to add a search light will not invalidate my powertrain warranty. But warranty isn't the point. Permission to drive is the point.
While we're at it, you might well point out that there might be some mods I could possibly make to my car that would make it no longer street legal. Again, this is not the point. If I want to make a Mad Max car with spikes and a machine gun crows nest on the roof, I'm allowed. I can't drive that on city streets, but I can drive it on my own property.
Disagree. I don't have to jailbreak a chevy to open the hood, or drill new mounting holes. I do have to jailbreak an iPhone if I want to do the equivalent (i dunno, get a bash shell running and open up a network port.)
Not only can I not do this myself without jailbreaking the iPhone, but I also cannot "go to the store" and buy a non-Apple sanctioned iPhone app. I can only buy through the Apple store.
I might have to jailbreak the computer systems that control the engine, but there's nothing stopping me from going to the store and buying non-GM branded shocks and putting them on a GM car. I can buy motor oil from anyone and put it in my engine, not "GM approved" motor oil that can only be purchased directly through GM dealers. Etc.
No; I see jailbreaking as roughly equivalent to fabricating custom parts in my garage.
That's not the same as going to the store and buying third-party parts.
I can go to a store and buy a third party audio system and install it in my car. I can get third-party seat covers and hang dice from my mirror. If a car were like an iPhone, I'd only be able to buy these things at a dealership.
but if you do so in a way that actively circumvents the manufacturer's design, you will void your warranty and your rights to expect certain functionality or service.
Yeah, but that doesn't stop you from being able to do it, period. I can buy third-party stuff for my car that will void my warranty, and nothing prevents me from buying it, nor does anything prevent the third-party from manufacturing and selling it.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but don't internet ads generate their revenue through the amount of clicks they incur? I know Google's ads do this.
By using adblock, what I'm saying is: I'm never going to be clicking on any of the ads on your website.
If I didn't use it, I still wouldn't be clicking on any ads on your website and they will also annoy me.
It's most likely that the people using ad blocking don't care about the ads you display and won't be clicking on them anyway.
You are wrong.
Ads did used to pay only for clickthrough, but I think this model went away a few years ago, because it was a poor model for advertising, and failed to account for the value of branding even when a sale isn't directly attributable to a specific viewing of a specific ad.
Ads currently pay two ways: for clicks and for views. Even if you never click, if your browser downloads and displays the ad, it helps support the site that presented the ad. So, if you're blocking ads entirely, you're denying the site revenue for those ad views that they fail to generate.
The ars article explains this...
With TV ads, the advertisors pay broadcasters to put the ads out there. There is no way to know how many people actually see the ad. They basically pay a lot of money on a chance that you'll see it.
With internet ads, they can tell through server logs how many times a particular ad is served, and so they pay out based on the number times an ad is served. If your blocking software worked by downloading the ad, but then didn't display it, then the advertisor wouldn't be aware. But most ad blockers work by blocking the call to the server that would bring the ad down. This only makes sense because why waste bandwidth on something you're not going to use, but the unfortunate consequence of this is that the content provider never gets paid out on the ad.
So, I see a way for ad blockers to have a smarter implementation that allows everyone to get what they want (well, except the advertisor, but that's OK because they're inhuman scum.) Modify the ad blocking software to download the ad, and simply don't display it to the user. Make this a mode that you can turn on or off, so you can still conserve bandwidth if that's important for you, or so you can deny revenue to sites you don't want to support. Currently, Adblock Plus allows you to whitelist or blacklist a domain. A middle option to blacklist-but-support-ad-revenue would fix this. Advertisers might not like it, but they wouldn't be able to do anything about it.
Paper can be burned, torn, folded, spindled, and mutilated
Paper can be stolen, photocopied, faxed.
When your (un-trusted) computer takes a picture of the key paper, a camlogger could intercept the key, compromising it.
Bottom line, the key needs to turn into machine-read data at some point in order to interface with the crypto system and unlock your data, no matter what. Moving it to a piece of paper doesn't make it any more secure than storing it on a read-only USB key that you only plug into your computer when you need to decrypt something, or a smart card.
In any event, if you really don't trust the PC, you have no business using it to decrypt anything at all. It'd be like entering your super secret PIN number at an ATM while some guy you don't know is standing right there watching you do it. As soon as it's decrypted any vulnerabilities of the host system can be used to gain access to the decrypted data.
And in a few years, LCDs came down in price so quickly. In 2002, I bought a *cheap* but decent quality 17" LCD monitor for $400. In 2010 I can buy a comparble quality 24" monitor for around $225. You can now buy a 46" HDTV for well under $1000 today. You could NEVER buy a CRT of that size for so little. And it was a rarity to see a CRT TV larger than 37" anywhere but in the wealthiest homes.
Once manufacturers recoup their R&D costs and achieve economies of scale, the prices on SSD will come down too. Once are close enough in cost compared spinning magnetic media that their additional benefits outweight any cost advantage of spinning disks, HDDs will become obsolete, and the entire market will switch to SSD, and then they'll get even cheaper.
"Ethernet cable" *is* jargon. "Network cable" is less so.
"Network card" isn't really jargony, but most probably people don't know that the back of the computer has cards in it, and these days it's more than likely an onboard ethernet controller that's integrated into the motherboard, not an expansion card. So, ask "is the network cable plugged into the computer?"
But chances are, they just don't feel like getting on their knees and going under the desk to get all dusty and poke around in the dark to look at the ass end of their computer, and would rather make you do it since, to them, that's your job.
The question I have is, how quickly can we either build nanobots that can be programmed to attack these infections, or else develop custom tailored viruses that target them? In other words, are antibiotics the only way to attack infection, or might we be able to develop other weapons to use against them?
Not in the traditional standard english sense of sentence, no. But in conversational use, people talk like that. If you're having trouble with it, it means that I'm incredulous as to the seriousness of the person I'm responding to.
Gore never once claimed that the glaciers would be completely melted by 2010. But that doesn't stop some idiot from claiming that Gore is a "laughingstock". Never mind that the glaciers *are* diminishing.
I'm usually of the opinion that idiots like this Apple shareholder shouldn't be dignified with a serious response. They should be laughed at and ridiculed. They aren't playing at making intellectually honest debate, and shouldn't be treated like they are. Sadly, many liberals seem to be infinitely patient and conciliatory when dealing with conservative cranks, and endure way too much abuse. We really need to do more to marginalize these cranks.
Because, seriously? Al Gore's movie came out like a couple years ago, and global climate change isn't something that you're going to see happening in dramatic fashion in a couple years. How is that not common knowledge?
You can safely assume that if used clothing became fashionable amongst the moneyed classes, clothing manufacturers would try to force Goodwill and the Salvation Army out of business.
This happened in the 90's. It was called "grunge". What you predict did not happen. Instead, we got $60 ripped ugly flannel shirts in department stores. Sometimes truth is stranger than prediction.
K, so how is Brin and Page developing PageRank when an obscure economics paper published at Harvard in 1941 and only re-discovered in 2010 reinventing the wheel?
Would Page and Brin have gotten there faster if they'd rooted through Harvard's economics library in the hopes that the best-yet algorithm for search results ranking would be there, somewhere? Was the Harvard paper "long accepted and taken for granted" or was it "forgotten and ignored"? Is PageRank a "duplication of a basic method"?
Personally, I think google got there quicker by re-inventing the wheel, if that's what this was. In my opinion, if something is only recognized as reinvention of the wheel after the fact, it ipso facto is not reinvention of the wheel in the sense described in the wikipedia article you cited.
"don't reinvent the wheel" is kindof dumb advice when you think about it.
If I didn't already have a wheel, it would take me a really long time to traverse the world in search of a wheel to see if it had been invented yet. If it has, and it's got sufficient penetration into the market that I know about them already, then, sure, it's a no brainer not to reinvent it. On the other hand, if no one in my immediate vicinity has ever heard of the wheel, then inventing one -- quickly -- is a lot smarter than traversing the known world until I run into a culture that already has wheels. Especially if they might exploit their superior technology to subjugate and enslave my people. Better to have a home-brewed shitty wheel to start off with, and upgrade quickly if I discover that there are other friendly cultures that have better wheels already, and have at least something if I don't discover anyone else, or discover hostiles who already have them.
As long as the cart is loosely integrated with the wheels I have, upgrading to better wheels when they are found to be available should be easy. And I might just learn something about wheels while studying them that applies to other problems, or could even possibly improve the existing state of the art with respect to wheels.
Conservative: n. 1) A person who holds to conservative principles or beliefs. 2) A person who agrees with other people who call themselves Conservatives, without regard to their actions, statements, beliefs, or principles. 3) A person who opposes anything that a non-Conservative (as defined by the first two definitions) says, does, or believes in.
Slashdot Mirror
I haven't heard about prosecutions, but I have heard of Apple banning apps from the app store, disabling apps that people already purchased, and bricking iPhones that were modified to allow running of non-Apple approved software.
And you can also go to apple, pay $99, join the developer program and run whatever code you like on your iPhone.
And how does this affect my ability to deal with third party software vendors?
I never said I cared if modifying an iPhone in ways not envisioned or endorsed by Apple voided the warranty. I said that I cared that I can't do it at all, without jailbreaking the phone. I do NOT need to jailbreak a car to drill mounting holes in the frame. I just pull out a drill and drill the holes. I don't need to do anything special to gain permission from the manufacturer to drill the holes.
It's my property, I decide to drill holes, I drill the holes, and no one tells me I'm no longer allowed to drive the car because I drilled some unauthorized holes in it.
If my holes weaken the frame member and causes frame failure, I'm SOL getting it fixed under warranty. If I'm stupid and drill holes through the engine block, I'm paying for the new engine out of pocket.
Even so, drilling holes in the fender to add a search light will not invalidate my powertrain warranty. But warranty isn't the point. Permission to drive is the point.
While we're at it, you might well point out that there might be some mods I could possibly make to my car that would make it no longer street legal. Again, this is not the point. If I want to make a Mad Max car with spikes and a machine gun crows nest on the roof, I'm allowed. I can't drive that on city streets, but I can drive it on my own property.
That's what this is about.
Disagree. I don't have to jailbreak a chevy to open the hood, or drill new mounting holes. I do have to jailbreak an iPhone if I want to do the equivalent (i dunno, get a bash shell running and open up a network port.)
Not only can I not do this myself without jailbreaking the iPhone, but I also cannot "go to the store" and buy a non-Apple sanctioned iPhone app. I can only buy through the Apple store.
I might have to jailbreak the computer systems that control the engine, but there's nothing stopping me from going to the store and buying non-GM branded shocks and putting them on a GM car. I can buy motor oil from anyone and put it in my engine, not "GM approved" motor oil that can only be purchased directly through GM dealers. Etc.
No; I see jailbreaking as roughly equivalent to fabricating custom parts in my garage.
That's not the same as going to the store and buying third-party parts.
I can go to a store and buy a third party audio system and install it in my car. I can get third-party seat covers and hang dice from my mirror. If a car were like an iPhone, I'd only be able to buy these things at a dealership.
Yeah, but that doesn't stop you from being able to do it, period. I can buy third-party stuff for my car that will void my warranty, and nothing prevents me from buying it, nor does anything prevent the third-party from manufacturing and selling it.
It would wear off rather quickly, unfortunately.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but don't internet ads generate their revenue through the amount of clicks they incur? I know Google's ads do this.
By using adblock, what I'm saying is: I'm never going to be clicking on any of the ads on your website.
If I didn't use it, I still wouldn't be clicking on any ads on your website and they will also annoy me.
It's most likely that the people using ad blocking don't care about the ads you display and won't be clicking on them anyway.
You are wrong.
Ads did used to pay only for clickthrough, but I think this model went away a few years ago, because it was a poor model for advertising, and failed to account for the value of branding even when a sale isn't directly attributable to a specific viewing of a specific ad.
Ads currently pay two ways: for clicks and for views. Even if you never click, if your browser downloads and displays the ad, it helps support the site that presented the ad. So, if you're blocking ads entirely, you're denying the site revenue for those ad views that they fail to generate.
The ars article explains this... With TV ads, the advertisors pay broadcasters to put the ads out there. There is no way to know how many people actually see the ad. They basically pay a lot of money on a chance that you'll see it. With internet ads, they can tell through server logs how many times a particular ad is served, and so they pay out based on the number times an ad is served. If your blocking software worked by downloading the ad, but then didn't display it, then the advertisor wouldn't be aware. But most ad blockers work by blocking the call to the server that would bring the ad down. This only makes sense because why waste bandwidth on something you're not going to use, but the unfortunate consequence of this is that the content provider never gets paid out on the ad. So, I see a way for ad blockers to have a smarter implementation that allows everyone to get what they want (well, except the advertisor, but that's OK because they're inhuman scum.) Modify the ad blocking software to download the ad, and simply don't display it to the user. Make this a mode that you can turn on or off, so you can still conserve bandwidth if that's important for you, or so you can deny revenue to sites you don't want to support. Currently, Adblock Plus allows you to whitelist or blacklist a domain. A middle option to blacklist-but-support-ad-revenue would fix this. Advertisers might not like it, but they wouldn't be able to do anything about it.
Bottom line, the key needs to turn into machine-read data at some point in order to interface with the crypto system and unlock your data, no matter what. Moving it to a piece of paper doesn't make it any more secure than storing it on a read-only USB key that you only plug into your computer when you need to decrypt something, or a smart card.
In any event, if you really don't trust the PC, you have no business using it to decrypt anything at all. It'd be like entering your super secret PIN number at an ATM while some guy you don't know is standing right there watching you do it. As soon as it's decrypted any vulnerabilities of the host system can be used to gain access to the decrypted data.
And in a few years, LCDs came down in price so quickly. In 2002, I bought a *cheap* but decent quality 17" LCD monitor for $400. In 2010 I can buy a comparble quality 24" monitor for around $225. You can now buy a 46" HDTV for well under $1000 today. You could NEVER buy a CRT of that size for so little. And it was a rarity to see a CRT TV larger than 37" anywhere but in the wealthiest homes.
Once manufacturers recoup their R&D costs and achieve economies of scale, the prices on SSD will come down too. Once are close enough in cost compared spinning magnetic media that their additional benefits outweight any cost advantage of spinning disks, HDDs will become obsolete, and the entire market will switch to SSD, and then they'll get even cheaper.
"Ethernet cable" *is* jargon. "Network cable" is less so.
"Network card" isn't really jargony, but most probably people don't know that the back of the computer has cards in it, and these days it's more than likely an onboard ethernet controller that's integrated into the motherboard, not an expansion card. So, ask "is the network cable plugged into the computer?"
But chances are, they just don't feel like getting on their knees and going under the desk to get all dusty and poke around in the dark to look at the ass end of their computer, and would rather make you do it since, to them, that's your job.
You really can't understand why she'd lie?
Obviously she wanted a free upgrade to a monitor that supported 1600x1200.
And she would have gotten away with it, too, if it wasn't for those lousy kids and that talking dog.
The question I have is, how quickly can we either build nanobots that can be programmed to attack these infections, or else develop custom tailored viruses that target them? In other words, are antibiotics the only way to attack infection, or might we be able to develop other weapons to use against them?
The TSA also considers the following to be weapons:
Box cutter.
Nail trimmer.
Shaving razor.
Kitchen knives
Dining utensils
Laser pointers
Cameras.
Yes, cameras.
If the predominant lesson learned from Slums is not how to prevent them then I think we are missing something . . .
Indeed.
Slums are not idyllic. But we should learn from them.
Because, if we don't, that's how we could all end up living once the era of cheap energy ends.
Not in the traditional standard english sense of sentence, no. But in conversational use, people talk like that. If you're having trouble with it, it means that I'm incredulous as to the seriousness of the person I'm responding to.
Gore never once claimed that the glaciers would be completely melted by 2010. But that doesn't stop some idiot from claiming that Gore is a "laughingstock". Never mind that the glaciers *are* diminishing.
I'm usually of the opinion that idiots like this Apple shareholder shouldn't be dignified with a serious response. They should be laughed at and ridiculed. They aren't playing at making intellectually honest debate, and shouldn't be treated like they are. Sadly, many liberals seem to be infinitely patient and conciliatory when dealing with conservative cranks, and endure way too much abuse. We really need to do more to marginalize these cranks.
Wow, apple stockholders must be really dumb.
Because, seriously? Al Gore's movie came out like a couple years ago, and global climate change isn't something that you're going to see happening in dramatic fashion in a couple years. How is that not common knowledge?
But then, I'm a cynical gen-x-er.
You can safely assume that if used clothing became fashionable amongst the moneyed classes, clothing manufacturers would try to force Goodwill and the Salvation Army out of business.
This happened in the 90's. It was called "grunge". What you predict did not happen. Instead, we got $60 ripped ugly flannel shirts in department stores. Sometimes truth is stranger than prediction.
I find that there is often an array of args when I'm sailing the Main().
I want a bowel disrupter!
Taco Bell has them for $1.29.
Reinventing the wheel is a phrase that means to duplicate a basic method that has long since been accepted and even taken for granted.
K, so how is Brin and Page developing PageRank when an obscure economics paper published at Harvard in 1941 and only re-discovered in 2010 reinventing the wheel?
Would Page and Brin have gotten there faster if they'd rooted through Harvard's economics library in the hopes that the best-yet algorithm for search results ranking would be there, somewhere? Was the Harvard paper "long accepted and taken for granted" or was it "forgotten and ignored"? Is PageRank a "duplication of a basic method"?
Personally, I think google got there quicker by re-inventing the wheel, if that's what this was. In my opinion, if something is only recognized as reinvention of the wheel after the fact, it ipso facto is not reinvention of the wheel in the sense described in the wikipedia article you cited.
"don't reinvent the wheel" is kindof dumb advice when you think about it.
If I didn't already have a wheel, it would take me a really long time to traverse the world in search of a wheel to see if it had been invented yet. If it has, and it's got sufficient penetration into the market that I know about them already, then, sure, it's a no brainer not to reinvent it. On the other hand, if no one in my immediate vicinity has ever heard of the wheel, then inventing one -- quickly -- is a lot smarter than traversing the known world until I run into a culture that already has wheels. Especially if they might exploit their superior technology to subjugate and enslave my people. Better to have a home-brewed shitty wheel to start off with, and upgrade quickly if I discover that there are other friendly cultures that have better wheels already, and have at least something if I don't discover anyone else, or discover hostiles who already have them.
As long as the cart is loosely integrated with the wheels I have, upgrading to better wheels when they are found to be available should be easy. And I might just learn something about wheels while studying them that applies to other problems, or could even possibly improve the existing state of the art with respect to wheels.
Conservative: n. 1) A person who holds to conservative principles or beliefs. 2) A person who agrees with other people who call themselves Conservatives, without regard to their actions, statements, beliefs, or principles. 3) A person who opposes anything that a non-Conservative (as defined by the first two definitions) says, does, or believes in.