Allows you to put your Amazon purchases on said external storage so that we dont have to stream. And if they had it so that it began downloading as soon as the purchase completed...say in the middle of the night for those people that bought the entire season, then even better.
Streaming sucks. Even on cable, streaming sucks. Its only redeeming feature is that it vastly increases what is available. Just do it Amazon, give us the download to disk option. Heck, they could even setup a torrent....everybody who orders a title downloads the same image, but its useless until its decrypted onto the disk. But what goes onto the disk is drm locked to the player by the program performing the decryption.
After each class, the kids can put a thumbs up or thumbs down next to a teachers name for performance, comportment, engagement, and subject knowledge. Give the other students the chance to make informed decisions about whether to opt out of their class or switch schools.
I am not saying we should run unsecured connections or that there is a single type of threat. And your post ends up sounding like a bunch of excuses as to why we have no choice but to trust something like SSL because its the only thing we got and we are stuck with it.
When my gut is in an uproar, I don't have patience for mazes and puzzles either. Maybe they were just feeling sick. Add stress, and the feeling magnifies.
I think that programmers are going to assume they can talk to the remote host, and then timeout/fallback when that communication fails to take place correctly. If you are going to connect to a server either with tcp or udp, you are going to do a gethostbyname and then send a packet. The NAT appliance is going to see the packets and set up its translation table so that outgoing packets get re-written with the correct source address/port. And the incoming packets from the dest/port are going to get re-written to talk to the client program. What messes things up is that the client has to push through the NAT first to setup the translation table. Which works fine unless you are acting as a server and are waiting for an unknown host to talk to. Then the translation table is empty, and your firewall is blocking everything. UPnP is a way to create servers without doing administration on the firewall. The application is not aware of any of this unless it tries to use UPnP to poke a dynamic hole in the firewall.
security model? One that will allow users to invoke lightweight sandboxes for untrusted applications like browsers? Linux has the opportunity to be the leader in this field. Should your foundation push for it?
NAT should setup a rule to allow your machine to get packets as long as you send some packets there first. Unless your game machine is acting as a game server and getting packets from many host, it should just work. Otherwise, you could/should setup a port forward to your internal machine.
but everyone needs an IPv4 address to keep their bluray player working, then how does having IPv6 on their cable modem help? We will still be running out of IPv4 addresses.
There are millions of devices with IPv4 baked in that will never get another firmware update. These devices cannot run tunnel software. They talk ipv4 and thats it. It is unreasonable to expect people to ditch their hardware to support new protocol that missed its window of opportunity for adoption.
and figured out they better find a better solution than ipv6. There is too much ipv4 only hardware out there to abandon it all. It would just be insane.
Maybe this is another reason to use TOR or something more generic to mask IP? Not for privacy, but to hide in the crowd. Google wants to know everything anyway....maybe they should offer a service to be a web-proxy-server.
The pay version unlocks features that allow periodic syncing of files to a ssh server. I have never tried these features , so I dont know how well they work.
Is Flash -designed- to be impossible to sandbox? Cannot the browser vendors force adobe to bend and setup their plugin to be easier to sandbox? I don't understand why this is still a problem after all these years.
Are the browsers providing sufficient sandboxing, or is the situation the same as its been for the last 10 years? Does this flash vulnerability require another vulnerability in the browser ecosystem that has already been blocked in current versions?
And hating every minute of it. I have as much time in as anyone, and I am thankful for people who think outside the box. Heck, free software and linux are "hip" and the only thing that kept MS from gobbling the world. The non-hipster people wrote OS/2, and maybe it was fine, but it was stagnant and smelled that way. So thanks for your opinion, but I will still give props where they are due to the girl with the glasses and the guy with the fedora hat. Thanks.
Make your box able to store the content locally so that we can play it anytime we want. You offer that on the PC and the Kindle, and I would love to see it expanded to the streaming boxes. You should also consider changing your xbox360 client so that it can download purchased content to the hard disk. I am sure there is enough DRM in a 360 to satisfy your licensing requirements. People here are saying make a dumb plug that just runs off of your servers in the sky. Don't listen to them. Deliver the content in a way where you only have to send it once. Its better for you, and it will work better for your customers than streaming. It would dovetail nicely with your season-pass system if the downloads began automatically.
There are tonnes of packages that are available for free for windows. Winscp, putty, etc, But currently there is no one way to just say "gimme that". Other than google/browse/download without verify. There is a system under cygwin to download software and maybe that is what most people use. But I dont think it covers everything.
Didn't IBM basically consider the entire PC product a commercial flop? Was it ever considered a success (ie profitable)? I thought they considered it a commercial loser, but a foot in the door for their larger boxes.
Slashdot Mirror
Allows you to put your Amazon purchases on said external storage so that we dont have to stream. And if they had it so that it began downloading as soon as the purchase completed...say in the middle of the night for those people that bought the entire season, then even better.
Streaming sucks. Even on cable, streaming sucks. Its only redeeming feature is that it vastly increases what is available. Just do it Amazon, give us the download to disk option. Heck, they could even setup a torrent....everybody who orders a title downloads the same image, but its useless until its decrypted onto the disk. But what goes onto the disk is drm locked to the player by the program performing the decryption.
After each class, the kids can put a thumbs up or thumbs down next to a teachers name for performance, comportment, engagement, and subject knowledge. Give the other students the chance to make informed decisions about whether to opt out of their class or switch schools.
I am not saying we should run unsecured connections or that there is a single type of threat. And your post ends up sounding like a bunch of excuses as to why we have no choice but to trust something like SSL because its the only thing we got and we are stuck with it.
Really, why would you trust a system where someone you dont know or trust is in charge of the private keys for the encryption?
No software. No seat belts. No automatic..anything.
When my gut is in an uproar, I don't have patience for mazes and puzzles either. Maybe they were just feeling sick. Add stress, and the feeling magnifies.
Let it look for and authenticate a file. Update the device only when the conditions are met.
I think that programmers are going to assume they can talk to the remote host, and then timeout/fallback when that communication fails to take place correctly. If you are going to connect to a server either with tcp or udp, you are going to do a gethostbyname and then send a packet. The NAT appliance is going to see the packets and set up its translation table so that outgoing packets get re-written with the correct source address/port. And the incoming packets from the dest/port are going to get re-written to talk to the client program.
What messes things up is that the client has to push through the NAT first to setup the translation table. Which works fine unless you are acting as a server and are waiting for an unknown host to talk to. Then the translation table is empty, and your firewall is blocking everything.
UPnP is a way to create servers without doing administration on the firewall. The application is not aware of any of this unless it tries to use UPnP to poke a dynamic hole in the firewall.
security model? One that will allow users to invoke lightweight sandboxes for untrusted applications like browsers? Linux has the opportunity to be the leader in this field. Should your foundation push for it?
NAT should setup a rule to allow your machine to get packets as long as you send some packets there first. Unless your game machine is acting as a game server and getting packets from many host, it should just work. Otherwise, you could/should setup a port forward to your internal machine.
but everyone needs an IPv4 address to keep their bluray player working, then how does having IPv6 on their cable modem help? We will still be running out of IPv4 addresses.
There are millions of devices with IPv4 baked in that will never get another firmware update. These devices cannot run tunnel software. They talk ipv4 and thats it. It is unreasonable to expect people to ditch their hardware to support new protocol that missed its window of opportunity for adoption.
and figured out they better find a better solution than ipv6. There is too much ipv4 only hardware out there to abandon it all. It would just be insane.
Maybe this is another reason to use TOR or something more generic to mask IP? Not for privacy, but to hide in the crowd. Google wants to know everything anyway....maybe they should offer a service to be a web-proxy-server.
There is an awful lot of vendor-supplied software on my phone I want to keep at arms length.
The pay version unlocks features that allow periodic syncing of files to a ssh server. I have never tried these features , so I dont know how well they work.
Seems like a liability black hole. If not a morality black hole.
Is Flash -designed- to be impossible to sandbox? Cannot the browser vendors force adobe to bend and setup their plugin to be easier to sandbox? I don't understand why this is still a problem after all these years.
Are the browsers providing sufficient sandboxing, or is the situation the same as its been for the last 10 years? Does this flash vulnerability require another vulnerability in the browser ecosystem that has already been blocked in current versions?
They just call it paper. The other stuff is open for discussion.
And hating every minute of it. I have as much time in as anyone, and I am thankful for people who think outside the box. Heck, free software and linux are "hip" and the only thing that kept MS from gobbling the world.
The non-hipster people wrote OS/2, and maybe it was fine, but it was stagnant and smelled that way. So thanks for your opinion, but I will still give props where they are due to the girl with the glasses and the guy with the fedora hat.
Thanks.
in case that was not apparent.
Make your box able to store the content locally so that we can play it anytime we want. You offer that on the PC and the Kindle, and I would love to see it expanded to the streaming boxes. You should also consider changing your xbox360 client so that it can download purchased content to the hard disk. I am sure there is enough DRM in a 360 to satisfy your licensing requirements.
People here are saying make a dumb plug that just runs off of your servers in the sky. Don't listen to them. Deliver the content in a way where you only have to send it once. Its better for you, and it will work better for your customers than streaming. It would dovetail nicely with your season-pass system if the downloads began automatically.
There are tonnes of packages that are available for free for windows. Winscp, putty, etc, But currently there is no one way to just say "gimme that". Other than google/browse/download without verify. There is a system under cygwin to download software and maybe that is what most people use. But I dont think it covers everything.
Didn't IBM basically consider the entire PC product a commercial flop? Was it ever considered a success (ie profitable)? I thought they considered it a commercial loser, but a foot in the door for their larger boxes.