I absolutely understand that Microsoft profits from DRM, but they wouldn't profit from DRM if there wasn't anybody more willing to sell encumbered media than they were to sell unencumbered media. I'm not saying that they are the good guys, I'm saying that the interpretation that they want to control all media isn't supported by their behavior so far. They are certainly willing to profit from the control of media.
Agnostic to DRM simply means that they are perfectly willing to provide the technology, but they are also perfectly willing to allow playback of unmanaged files. Prior to HDCP, this is entirely true. Name a Microsoft DRM technology that is not allowed to be used on a device or platform that supports playback of unencumbered files. That's agnostic. I understand that people see the potential for bait and switch, but guess what, that's why I don't buy media with onerous DRM(I buy a DVD once in a while). I couldn't care less if the devices and software I own support DRM or not, but I won't pay very much for DRM media.
That behavior is consistent with both a company-wide obsession over controlling all content playback and a company wide willingness to create technologies that increase the perceived value of their platforms even though in reality the technology may have a negative impact on consumers.
DRM isn't a win-it or lose-it ideological battle that has permanent long term implications for society, it is a stupid idea that will cost unaware people some money in the short term and then go away. For an example of this, please see iTunes.
Microsoft's behavior has been DRM agnostic much of the time. I'm pretty sure that they see a formidable business case for cow-towing to big content producers(i.e., playing back DVDs makes their platforms more attractive for consumers) and thus work to provide non-trivial DRM solutions, but right up until HDCP, they have always had a parallel unmanaged path for playback of content. (and given that HDCP is an industry wide attack on the consumer, it's hard to argue for singling out Microsoft for supporting it)
In a world where most consumers don't seem to care about their rights, I'm not surprised that they are failing to use their market position as a lever to support consumer rights.
That and you can rely on flash being installed a great deal more of the time than you can rely on a custom control(the OP was talking about an intranet, so presumably, their control is always available).
I'm sure referencing a wacko supply-sider will make someone mad, but I bet the profit to virus count relationship follows something like the Laffer curve, where at some point malware becomes so pervasive that people at least stop running anything that doesn't come in a box from Walmart and maybe even stop using computers altogether, so they don't need protection anymore.
Energy doesn't have to be expressed in terms of distance and time. Because it is, the ratio of energy/mass happens to have distance^2/time^2 units. It's still really cool that the ratio can be expressed as the speed of light.
I haven't actually been paying close enough attention to have an opinion on whether impeachment is justified, but I agree that it is the correct mechanism. I was just pointing out that encrypting the backup and sending it to another branch of government was not particularly problematic from a data security point of view.
Are you snarking? I'm not claiming to have discovered anything. In fact, I read about it when I got curious about whether c^2 was a constant or not. Oddly enough, there is writing about defining systems of measurement with c=1.
There's no requirement that c has to be defined in terms of distance and time(In fact, SI defines distance in terms of c and time). Notice that c^2 = E/M. If you measure energy in terms of mass, then the units will cancel out and c will in fact be 1. I guess it might not be particularly useful to define energy in terms of mass(Gee, I've got 0.000000000000000000000001 grams equivalent fuel in my gas tank), but the whole point of the equation is that you can do it.
If you aren't snarking and know what you are talking about, explain why c can't be set to 1.
There's three branches. Develop a standard server that encrypts the backups for branch A and sends the data to branch B and the key to branch C. Then, B & C can confer if they think there is a problem with A, but they can't act independently.
I'm not quite sure about it, but I don't think a photon cares much about what we think a second is.
I really mean I'm not sure about it. The whole light has its own rules thing is awesome and I think its cool that mass and energy are related to each other and this thing that seems to be a fundamental property of of the universe.
I don't have a high level understanding of the material, but time isn't something that you and a photon experience in quite the same way. Essentially, from the photon's perspective, it gets emitted and then almost instantaneously collides with something. As far as you can tell, it took years or minutes to complete the journey.
If you accelerate to 0.5 c and shine a flashlight, light moves away from you at c. Not at 0.5c or 1.5c, but at c. If you were pointing the light at someone, they would see a different wavelength than you would. If you pointed it behind you they would see a lower frequency and if you pointed in front of you they would see a higher frequency.
So it isn't simply a matter of insisting that the speed of light is a time based unit, but I'm not quite sure what the deeper consequences are.
It was described in measurement systems of the day, yes. Note that it is described, not defined, c is a property of the universe(or so we think, blah, blah, blah).
Slashdot Mirror
Yeah, because some lawyer is going to know how to find the bug that they installed in his laptop.
Not the topic of discussion? What's the freaking subject line of these posts? "Why MS...MUST CONTROL...".
That's also one of the goals of traditional social networking.
I absolutely understand that Microsoft profits from DRM, but they wouldn't profit from DRM if there wasn't anybody more willing to sell encumbered media than they were to sell unencumbered media. I'm not saying that they are the good guys, I'm saying that the interpretation that they want to control all media isn't supported by their behavior so far. They are certainly willing to profit from the control of media.
Agnostic to DRM simply means that they are perfectly willing to provide the technology, but they are also perfectly willing to allow playback of unmanaged files. Prior to HDCP, this is entirely true. Name a Microsoft DRM technology that is not allowed to be used on a device or platform that supports playback of unencumbered files. That's agnostic. I understand that people see the potential for bait and switch, but guess what, that's why I don't buy media with onerous DRM(I buy a DVD once in a while). I couldn't care less if the devices and software I own support DRM or not, but I won't pay very much for DRM media.
It depends on how much you prefer writing Java to writing javascript.
Presumably the compiler/translator/whatchamahoosit can also smooth out the differences between various javascript platforms.
That behavior is consistent with both a company-wide obsession over controlling all content playback and a company wide willingness to create technologies that increase the perceived value of their platforms even though in reality the technology may have a negative impact on consumers.
DRM isn't a win-it or lose-it ideological battle that has permanent long term implications for society, it is a stupid idea that will cost unaware people some money in the short term and then go away. For an example of this, please see iTunes.
Microsoft's behavior has been DRM agnostic much of the time. I'm pretty sure that they see a formidable business case for cow-towing to big content producers(i.e., playing back DVDs makes their platforms more attractive for consumers) and thus work to provide non-trivial DRM solutions, but right up until HDCP, they have always had a parallel unmanaged path for playback of content. (and given that HDCP is an industry wide attack on the consumer, it's hard to argue for singling out Microsoft for supporting it)
In a world where most consumers don't seem to care about their rights, I'm not surprised that they are failing to use their market position as a lever to support consumer rights.
Well, at least you know she likes you, she put up with you saying "No, I don't support Windows unless you want to pay".
That and you can rely on flash being installed a great deal more of the time than you can rely on a custom control(the OP was talking about an intranet, so presumably, their control is always available).
Maps was in house:
http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2005/02/mapping-your-way.html
Or at least, it was acquired before it was launched.
Via:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_Maps#Development_history
Do you think the posters in comp.lang.python (which is also bridged to a python.org mailing list) are faking these headers:
The spam is coming out of Google Groups.
+1 bonus point for ripping on Friedman.
You are either young or you have aged poorly.
Smart always helps, but successful people are passionate and driven more than they are good at tests.
The argument isn't that the effort is lost, the argument is that the effort is available in staggering amounts.
I'm sure referencing a wacko supply-sider will make someone mad, but I bet the profit to virus count relationship follows something like the Laffer curve, where at some point malware becomes so pervasive that people at least stop running anything that doesn't come in a box from Walmart and maybe even stop using computers altogether, so they don't need protection anymore.
Energy doesn't have to be expressed in terms of distance and time. Because it is, the ratio of energy/mass happens to have distance^2/time^2 units. It's still really cool that the ratio can be expressed as the speed of light.
I haven't actually been paying close enough attention to have an opinion on whether impeachment is justified, but I agree that it is the correct mechanism. I was just pointing out that encrypting the backup and sending it to another branch of government was not particularly problematic from a data security point of view.
Are you snarking? I'm not claiming to have discovered anything. In fact, I read about it when I got curious about whether c^2 was a constant or not. Oddly enough, there is writing about defining systems of measurement with c=1.
There's no requirement that c has to be defined in terms of distance and time(In fact, SI defines distance in terms of c and time). Notice that c^2 = E/M. If you measure energy in terms of mass, then the units will cancel out and c will in fact be 1. I guess it might not be particularly useful to define energy in terms of mass(Gee, I've got 0.000000000000000000000001 grams equivalent fuel in my gas tank), but the whole point of the equation is that you can do it.
If you aren't snarking and know what you are talking about, explain why c can't be set to 1.
There's three branches. Develop a standard server that encrypts the backups for branch A and sends the data to branch B and the key to branch C. Then, B & C can confer if they think there is a problem with A, but they can't act independently.
You are stuck in the basement.
I'm not quite sure about it, but I don't think a photon cares much about what we think a second is.
I really mean I'm not sure about it. The whole light has its own rules thing is awesome and I think its cool that mass and energy are related to each other and this thing that seems to be a fundamental property of of the universe.
I don't have a high level understanding of the material, but time isn't something that you and a photon experience in quite the same way. Essentially, from the photon's perspective, it gets emitted and then almost instantaneously collides with something. As far as you can tell, it took years or minutes to complete the journey.
If you accelerate to 0.5 c and shine a flashlight, light moves away from you at c. Not at 0.5c or 1.5c, but at c. If you were pointing the light at someone, they would see a different wavelength than you would. If you pointed it behind you they would see a lower frequency and if you pointed in front of you they would see a higher frequency.
So it isn't simply a matter of insisting that the speed of light is a time based unit, but I'm not quite sure what the deeper consequences are.
It was described in measurement systems of the day, yes. Note that it is described, not defined, c is a property of the universe(or so we think, blah, blah, blah).
What happens when you define your system of measurement such that c=1?
E=M.
It's remarkable that the relationship between energy and mass is related to the speed of light, but c^2 really is just a constant.