Ok, feeding the trolls again... Here I go. Education has no boundaries.
Of course there are more people enjoying crappy movies than those standing for their rights.
What rights? And do those conflict with copyrights?
The right to have privacy when talking to someone over the internet. Ahhhhh, that's not a right that is written down in the constitution, but that's something we enjoy all the same. Because copyright (in this case) applies to data (movies, music, etc) the ability to enforce said copyright *is* the ability to snoop on *all* data exchanges on the internet. Period. Including your credit card number when you buy something on the web. See the problem here?
I could live my life without watching anything HOLLYWOOD produces.
Pretty pointless statement when you follow it up with 'I don't'.
I don't mean I consume all the stuff that hollywood produces. The stuff without DRM (music) I buy. The stuff with DRM I... well, I don't buy.
I don't, but I will NEVER use any platform that endorses DRM *ever*
Yet you openly admit to funding companies that do, sounds like a lot of talk but not a lot of action.
Mind you I'm on Linux. So buying a DVD and watching it on Linux makes me a criminal, since no player has been "approved" by the producers, and by the great law of the DMCA, I am not allowed by law to "crack" the DRM that is built in. So if I want to watch a DVD on my PC, I have to be an outlaw (or to pay to get Windows and an overly expensive software player that I shouldn't have to pay for in the first place). I'd rather download the damn movie and be done with it. This way I'm also an outlaw, but I didn't fund the cretins that made me an outlaw.
Because I want to be the master of what I watch, not someone else.
Why? If DRM were transparent and the system just worked i'd be happy with it, i want it to be a license for me to play movies, not a license for a particular device of mine to play movies.
DRM cannot be transparent be the very definition of DRM. DRM's goal is to prevent you from listening to music or viewing a movie, without an "approved" device. The entire point is to give the producers control over the way you will enjoy your media. If they get their way, they will end up controlling everything, including the price and brands of TV producers. They would just have to "refuse" to license their DRM tech to Samsung (for example) and Samsung would be instantly out of the TV business, because unable to build a TV set that is lawfully able to decode a DRMed stream. Don't you think they have enough lobbying power as it is?
But more than that, DRM is doomed because all it takes nowadays is *ONE* human being for a movie to be on the internet. And no matter the protection, you will always have at least one person on earth willing to spend 2 hours with his professional camcorder in front of his TV set to have the movie on the internet for the entire world to download. That's what we call the analog hole. At some point, the digital signal - which can be DRMed - has to be transformed to analog to reach our sensors. At that point, the DRM is necessarily gone.
And last, DRM are just forcing people to use piracy, nothing else.
Well yes, and that's the problem with it, those who pirate movies get a better experience than the studios' actual customers. Somehow studios just haven't realized that.
That's not the problem, it's a side effect of all the rest.
since it's ultimate goal is to prevent people from watching the very thing they're trying to watch through DRM!!!
I'm not sure you understand DRM, it is to prevent you from using that content outside the
Of course there are more people enjoying crappy movies than those standing for their rights.
What right is that, exactly? The right to benefit from someone else's hard work without having to give anything back?
So to you, standing against PIPA/SOPA and DRM is just being a pirate? You're just as dumb as the most stupid Hollywood producer.
You can quibble over middlemen taking the lion's share, but someone spent a lot of time and someone risked a lot of money investing in every blockbuster movie, AAA game, and so on. I don't think you can credibly claim that those products have no value when millions of people pay real money to enjoy them, and millions more rip them off so they obviously enjoy the products even if they don't pay for them.
I'm not claiming that, but apparently you are making the claim that I do. So respectfully fuck you. I *never* claimed that. And no, the death of DRM will not kill hollywood, not by any stretch of the imagination. I mean, DRM is effectively dead on music, did they immediately stop making money? Come on, wake up !
Please don't insult those of us who have been lifelong supporters of civil liberties
If you equate "Anti-DRM" with "Pro-piracy" you haven't followed much in the civil liberty fight in the US since the DMCA really. The fight might seem ridiculous from over where you are, but trust me, if we loose you'll be the first one to complain. The right to privacy in one's communication might not seem important right now, but that's only because we have it.
That's your choice and of course you're entitled to your opinion, but please don't force it on everyone else. A lot more people enjoy watching content produced by Hollywood than are up in arms over standardising DRM.
Of course there are more people enjoying crappy movies than those standing for their rights. It's the 21st century. None of the people in the US of A have known war on their soil, have known hunger and a great repression, none have known a repressing regime. So they don't know.
And apparently you're one of them.
I could live my life without watching anything HOLLYWOOD produces. I don't, but I will NEVER use any platform that endorses DRM *ever*
Because I want to be the master of what I watch, not someone else.
And last, DRM are just forcing people to use piracy, nothing else. It's been that way since the beginning of DRM and it will not stop. DRM enables piracy because DRM is doomed to begin with - since it's ultimate goal is to prevent people from watching the very thing they're trying to watch through DRM!!! When will they learn?
So..... someone discovered LZMA. This is news? I mean, I know news aren't exactly news on Slashdot, but that one is about 14 years late!!! Talk about a slow news day !
The real question I have is how are they going to reproduce everything that's in the meat. I mean, the core stuff, fine. But there are a myriad of different stuff in meat, including bacteria of all kinds, microbes, all types of things. Sometimes we get ill because of it, but for the most part we ingest it just fine.
What will happen when nothing of that sort goes into our body anymore? Will we take "dirt pills"? I know people have been making Tannin pills to prevent from having to drink wine...
They may share all the data in the world, they won't know how to match it with the other domain data. Google cannot do its job with analytics even if I forward all the requests server side to them. The cookie they dropped on xyz.com won't show up on my browsing data. They won't be able to correlate.
False, I'm afraid
Since you're obviously smarter than me, can you explain how a cookie dropped on my browser by abc.com will be used to correlate my browsing on the site xyz.com? Of course, they have only scripts and resources originating from their own domain, which is the assumption in this thread.
But the cookies are domain dependent. They may share all the data in the world, they won't know how to match it with the other domain data. Google cannot do its job with analytics even if I forward all the requests server side to them. The cookie they dropped on xyz.com won't show up on my browsing data. They won't be able to correlate.
Third party cookies: It should be only the cookies from the page you see the URL in the browser address bar that are allowed. None other.
Yes, with time, everyone is going to consolidate their scripts under the main domain.
And the situation will be fine. Because when people will consolidate their stuff on their own domain, they will be able to track you on their website (big deal, there's access_log anyways) but they won't be able to track you anywhere else.
We also ditched $1 and $2 paper currency for $1 and $2 coins. That was also a good move in getting rid of those ratty dollar bills. The US cold easily do the same thing as you already have $1 coins in circulation. About the only people who will notice a change are the strippers who will now have use their coin slots.
Wait what? How am I suppose to tip strippers without $1 bills!?!
In Europe we've all but done away with the 1 and 2 eurocent coins - their monetary value vs cost involved in handling them just didn't make sense.
Clearly, you have no clue how things work in Europe. Please talk about what you know - namely your country - but do not try to expand your knowledge by thinking all European countries work the same. They don't.
Europe has a directive called EUCD (the very equivalent of the DMCA) that has been ratified around 2006 and laws have popped up in every country for the application. It is now very much in effect in all of the EU countries.
The sad thing is, it is working too. A 2gb cap on my usage would pretty much not require ANY changes in my data habits what so ever
Be aware that the faster it will go the more bandwidth you will use. You go to Google only a few times a month because it is so slow and painful. With a fast connection you will get there much more frequently because it is now convenient.
You should go out more, and meet people that are not geeks. There are plenty out there and they represent the overwhelming majority in your country.
The thing is, learning all the intricacies of security (and thus the intricacy of technology) far outpace the intricacy of driving an automobile. It could take years or decades.
I understand your point of view, but it's a very selfish one. It lacks a full bucket of empathy.
Anyone has done any research on Android apps, on the same topic ?
Actually, very few leak details.
Android applications have to ask permissions to get access to the internet or your personal details.
Which is all but the same as most tech-unaware users will dismiss the dialog. What they understand behind these dialog boxes is that if they click "No", the App won't work.
It's a bit like electing the president. It's nice to ask people for their opinion, but the overwhelming majority has no clue what's at stake, so it serves very little purpose.
- Hi there, can I take your order please? - I'd like a few billion humans. I'll take them medium-rare. - Thank you sir. Your order will be ready in a few millenia, the time for the interstellar microwave to cook'em. - Thanks! I'll be waiting outside.
It hardly constitutes evil to allow you to opt out of something.
While I agree with the majority of your post, I think it is evil to require users to opt out. To me that is the same as saying that microsoft wasn't evil to bundle the browser, you could 'opt-out' by deleting it and installing your own browser, after all.
All true for the fact that no, you could not delete IE.
Again, the GGP said something else: My 2: 17 may be a low number, but 3 is a much lower one, and you only needed to hear your engineers!
By his account, and the way I understand it, there is no effort that is too big to save one life. Therefore, we should spend all the humanity's energy trying to save all lives. Since there is not limit in the effort justifiable to save one, imagine to save all!
You know, it was just a little sarcastic. I don't think there's any need to go all out on me like that. Unless you've got nothing better to do that is.
I'm not talking about standards, but about implementation. By reading you one would find impossible to believe the iPhone 4S has twice the data speed of the iPhone 4, since they are all on the same 3G network. How can that be? Huh?
Just an illustration of the theoretical speed of 4 phones The first generation 4G phones are not faster than the iPhone 4S. Of course, the 4G standard has much better potential than that. But the first version of the phones are consuming a hell of a lot of battery, while going no faster than an iPhone 4S.
Sure, you can call it Apple propaganda, but the field tests tend to agree with the graph (at least I've read about one a few weeks ago)
Exactly. What we use to communicate is a language. All of them have their biases. They are heavily based on preconceptions and implied meaning that change regarding whoever is reading and whoever is writing. Hence, when "a fact" is written down, it is de facto interpreted by the one writing it down, and it will again be interpreted by someone reading it. It has ceased to be a fact and is now an interpretation of a fact.
Slashdot Mirror
Ok, feeding the trolls again... Here I go. Education has no boundaries.
Of course there are more people enjoying crappy movies than those standing for their rights.
What rights? And do those conflict with copyrights?
The right to have privacy when talking to someone over the internet. Ahhhhh, that's not a right that is written down in the constitution, but that's something we enjoy all the same. Because copyright (in this case) applies to data (movies, music, etc) the ability to enforce said copyright *is* the ability to snoop on *all* data exchanges on the internet. Period. Including your credit card number when you buy something on the web. See the problem here?
I could live my life without watching anything HOLLYWOOD produces.
Pretty pointless statement when you follow it up with 'I don't'.
I don't mean I consume all the stuff that hollywood produces. The stuff without DRM (music) I buy. The stuff with DRM I ... well, I don't buy.
I don't, but I will NEVER use any platform that endorses DRM *ever*
Yet you openly admit to funding companies that do, sounds like a lot of talk but not a lot of action.
Mind you I'm on Linux. So buying a DVD and watching it on Linux makes me a criminal, since no player has been "approved" by the producers, and by the great law of the DMCA, I am not allowed by law to "crack" the DRM that is built in. So if I want to watch a DVD on my PC, I have to be an outlaw (or to pay to get Windows and an overly expensive software player that I shouldn't have to pay for in the first place). I'd rather download the damn movie and be done with it. This way I'm also an outlaw, but I didn't fund the cretins that made me an outlaw.
Because I want to be the master of what I watch, not someone else.
Why? If DRM were transparent and the system just worked i'd be happy with it, i want it to be a license for me to play movies, not a license for a particular device of mine to play movies.
DRM cannot be transparent be the very definition of DRM. DRM's goal is to prevent you from listening to music or viewing a movie, without an "approved" device. The entire point is to give the producers control over the way you will enjoy your media. If they get their way, they will end up controlling everything, including the price and brands of TV producers. They would just have to "refuse" to license their DRM tech to Samsung (for example) and Samsung would be instantly out of the TV business, because unable to build a TV set that is lawfully able to decode a DRMed stream. Don't you think they have enough lobbying power as it is?
But more than that, DRM is doomed because all it takes nowadays is *ONE* human being for a movie to be on the internet. And no matter the protection, you will always have at least one person on earth willing to spend 2 hours with his professional camcorder in front of his TV set to have the movie on the internet for the entire world to download. That's what we call the analog hole. At some point, the digital signal - which can be DRMed - has to be transformed to analog to reach our sensors. At that point, the DRM is necessarily gone.
And last, DRM are just forcing people to use piracy, nothing else.
Well yes, and that's the problem with it, those who pirate movies get a better experience than the studios' actual customers. Somehow studios just haven't realized that.
That's not the problem, it's a side effect of all the rest.
since it's ultimate goal is to prevent people from watching the very thing they're trying to watch through DRM!!!
I'm not sure you understand DRM, it is to prevent you from using that content outside the
Of course there are more people enjoying crappy movies than those standing for their rights.
What right is that, exactly? The right to benefit from someone else's hard work without having to give anything back?
So to you, standing against PIPA/SOPA and DRM is just being a pirate? You're just as dumb as the most stupid Hollywood producer.
You can quibble over middlemen taking the lion's share, but someone spent a lot of time and someone risked a lot of money investing in every blockbuster movie, AAA game, and so on. I don't think you can credibly claim that those products have no value when millions of people pay real money to enjoy them, and millions more rip them off so they obviously enjoy the products even if they don't pay for them.
I'm not claiming that, but apparently you are making the claim that I do. So respectfully fuck you. I *never* claimed that. And no, the death of DRM will not kill hollywood, not by any stretch of the imagination. I mean, DRM is effectively dead on music, did they immediately stop making money? Come on, wake up !
Please don't insult those of us who have been lifelong supporters of civil liberties
If you equate "Anti-DRM" with "Pro-piracy" you haven't followed much in the civil liberty fight in the US since the DMCA really. The fight might seem ridiculous from over where you are, but trust me, if we loose you'll be the first one to complain. The right to privacy in one's communication might not seem important right now, but that's only because we have it.
That's your choice and of course you're entitled to your opinion, but please don't force it on everyone else. A lot more people enjoy watching content produced by Hollywood than are up in arms over standardising DRM.
Of course there are more people enjoying crappy movies than those standing for their rights. It's the 21st century. None of the people in the US of A have known war on their soil, have known hunger and a great repression, none have known a repressing regime. So they don't know.
And apparently you're one of them.
I could live my life without watching anything HOLLYWOOD produces. I don't, but I will NEVER use any platform that endorses DRM *ever*
Because I want to be the master of what I watch, not someone else.
And last, DRM are just forcing people to use piracy, nothing else. It's been that way since the beginning of DRM and it will not stop. DRM enables piracy because DRM is doomed to begin with - since it's ultimate goal is to prevent people from watching the very thing they're trying to watch through DRM!!! When will they learn?
Ok, I read the article and it was interesting. But the summary is IMO appalling. That said, it is Slashdot and I should have known better...
Thanks for the tip.
So..... someone discovered LZMA. This is news? I mean, I know news aren't exactly news on Slashdot, but that one is about 14 years late!!! Talk about a slow news day !
The real question I have is how are they going to reproduce everything that's in the meat. I mean, the core stuff, fine. But there are a myriad of different stuff in meat, including bacteria of all kinds, microbes, all types of things. Sometimes we get ill because of it, but for the most part we ingest it just fine.
What will happen when nothing of that sort goes into our body anymore? Will we take "dirt pills"? I know people have been making Tannin pills to prevent from having to drink wine ...
This will be a sad day IMO.
Good point.
Maybe somebody should write an app that lets the sender speak into the phone, and the receiver hear it immediately.
I'd jump in, but it's probably already patented.
Then you just don't know how to read. What is uncler in the sentence "scripts and resources originating from their own domain" ?
Please reread all the history. It looks as if you jumped in not knowing what we were talking about.
False, I'm afraid
Since you're obviously smarter than me, can you explain how a cookie dropped on my browser by abc.com will be used to correlate my browsing on the site xyz.com? Of course, they have only scripts and resources originating from their own domain, which is the assumption in this thread.
Your turn.
But the cookies are domain dependent. They may share all the data in the world, they won't know how to match it with the other domain data. Google cannot do its job with analytics even if I forward all the requests server side to them. The cookie they dropped on xyz.com won't show up on my browsing data. They won't be able to correlate.
Third party cookies: It should be only the cookies from the page you see the URL in the browser address bar that are allowed. None other.
They should be 0. Or maybe 1. This just proves that Java is a piece of shit in every regard.
20 words to say that? There should be 0. Or maybe one. This just proves that AC is a piece of shit in every regard.
Yes, with time, everyone is going to consolidate their scripts under the main domain.
And the situation will be fine. Because when people will consolidate their stuff on their own domain, they will be able to track you on their website (big deal, there's access_log anyways) but they won't be able to track you anywhere else.
Which is fine with me.
We also ditched $1 and $2 paper currency for $1 and $2 coins. That was also a good move in getting rid of those ratty dollar bills. The US cold easily do the same thing as you already have $1 coins in circulation. About the only people who will notice a change are the strippers who will now have use their coin slots.
Wait what? How am I suppose to tip strippers without $1 bills!?!
Coin slots. It's all written in the GP's comment.
In Europe we've all but done away with the 1 and 2 eurocent coins - their monetary value vs cost involved in handling them just didn't make sense.
Clearly, you have no clue how things work in Europe. Please talk about what you know - namely your country - but do not try to expand your knowledge by thinking all European countries work the same. They don't.
The chances of a woman on slashdot seem slim :>
I consider myself the exception to your rule.
And so, do you have a phone number?
Europe has a directive called EUCD (the very equivalent of the DMCA) that has been ratified around 2006 and laws have popped up in every country for the application. It is now very much in effect in all of the EU countries.
I guess I am the sociopath here. I save it for the elevator where there is no escape.
You sacrifice yourself for the sake of trapping your victims. I use the same idea, but I have no sense of smell!
There is no sacrifice. Your own smell is completely tolerable compared to the smell of others.
The sad thing is, it is working too. A 2gb cap on my usage would pretty much not require ANY changes in my data habits what so ever
Be aware that the faster it will go the more bandwidth you will use. You go to Google only a few times a month because it is so slow and painful. With a fast connection you will get there much more frequently because it is now convenient.
You should go out more, and meet people that are not geeks. There are plenty out there and they represent the overwhelming majority in your country.
The thing is, learning all the intricacies of security (and thus the intricacy of technology) far outpace the intricacy of driving an automobile. It could take years or decades.
I understand your point of view, but it's a very selfish one. It lacks a full bucket of empathy.
Anyone has done any research on Android apps, on the same topic ?
Actually, very few leak details.
Android applications have to ask permissions to get access to the internet or your personal details.
Which is all but the same as most tech-unaware users will dismiss the dialog. What they understand behind these dialog boxes is that if they click "No", the App won't work.
It's a bit like electing the president. It's nice to ask people for their opinion, but the overwhelming majority has no clue what's at stake, so it serves very little purpose.
Still, it's better than not asking. A little.
(In the cloud)
- Hi there, can I take your order please?
- I'd like a few billion humans. I'll take them medium-rare.
- Thank you sir. Your order will be ready in a few millenia, the time for the interstellar microwave to cook'em.
- Thanks! I'll be waiting outside.
(We're warming up !)
It hardly constitutes evil to allow you to opt out of something.
While I agree with the majority of your post, I think it is evil to require users to opt out. To me that is the same as saying that microsoft wasn't evil to bundle the browser, you could 'opt-out' by deleting it and installing your own browser, after all.
All true for the fact that no, you could not delete IE.
Again, the GGP said something else: My 2: 17 may be a low number, but 3 is a much lower one, and you only needed to hear your engineers!
By his account, and the way I understand it, there is no effort that is too big to save one life. Therefore, we should spend all the humanity's energy trying to save all lives. Since there is not limit in the effort justifiable to save one, imagine to save all!
You know, it was just a little sarcastic. I don't think there's any need to go all out on me like that. Unless you've got nothing better to do that is.
I'm not talking about standards, but about implementation. By reading you one would find impossible to believe the iPhone 4S has twice the data speed of the iPhone 4, since they are all on the same 3G network. How can that be? Huh?
Just an illustration of the theoretical speed of 4 phones The first generation 4G phones are not faster than the iPhone 4S. Of course, the 4G standard has much better potential than that. But the first version of the phones are consuming a hell of a lot of battery, while going no faster than an iPhone 4S.
Sure, you can call it Apple propaganda, but the field tests tend to agree with the graph (at least I've read about one a few weeks ago)
you're simply using another number system
Exactly. What we use to communicate is a language. All of them have their biases. They are heavily based on preconceptions and implied meaning that change regarding whoever is reading and whoever is writing. Hence, when "a fact" is written down, it is de facto interpreted by the one writing it down, and it will again be interpreted by someone reading it. It has ceased to be a fact and is now an interpretation of a fact.