If it ever becomes worthwhile to regularly leave orbit, debris will be a short term impediment, not a centuries long problem. (the reasoning here is easy -- the easier it is to send stuff into/out of orbit, the easier it is to send stuff into orbit to knock the junk out of the way)
It is still stupid to wantonly pollute various orbits, but the primary effect of blowing this particular satellite up will be that it deorbits in pieces.
I see you finally finished building your computer. Which was more time consuming, smelting the metals, building the components or writing/adapting the software?
Your post is self-referentially ironic though, how fun. Not to mention the dozen or so preceding posts, to this story alone, that questioned the wisdom of copyright.
I guess it comes down to whether your question/concern is more like "Is it perfect?" or more like "Is it better than a password?". Of course it isn't perfect, but for lots of purposes, a physical token is quite a lot better than a password. As you say, no one really knows how hard it is to compromise the physical tokens(you sort of can't until you have done it), but there are plenty of people who think it is hard enough.
So he is more vulnerable to people who really want to get into his house without him noticing. People that don't care if he notices can just use a sledge. I expect more of the latter at my house, and still very few, so as a calculated risk, I don't think this is a bad one. Still, I don't want a chip in my arm, keys work fine.
MAC addresses are intended to be device specific because it is convenient for something like a router to be able to tell different devices apart, even if they are two copies of the same device(this just about sums up my knowledge of MAC addresses). That some people tried to use this as security is a historical accident. The issue is just as you have it, you have to rely on the hardware telling the truth.
where the hardware implementation isn't necessarily physically connected to the computer. I sort of answered you question in the context of hardware that is connected(sort of in the sense that I wasn't thinking about the distinction), in which case, one way to implement authentication is to have the private half of a private/public key pair on the device, and have the server send a secret that has been encrypted with the public key -- only the holder of the private key will be able to read the secret.
In the sense that the client sends a blob of ostensibly unique data to the server, yes, this is just like a MAC address.
In the sense that the client receives a blob of data from the server and returns the result of cryptographically signing that blob, no, it is nothing like a MAC address.
Setting up a delicious account with links to them would take you an extra five minutes the next time you installed, and probably save you that five minutes the time after that...
Beta 3 has one new feature that I've been waiting years for - you can now type shortcuts in the location bar to reference installed search engines. For instance, if you've set up "g" as the shortcut for google, then type "g vegan restaurants" and you'll get the results immediately. Mozilla had this, but it never made it over to Firefox until now. Thanks to the dev who implemented this feature; I owe you a beer.
This has been in Firefox since at least version 2.0, probably earlier. You don't have to believe me, but I am using version 2 and it works just fine.
Then they'll use that database to take out a second mortgage on your home, purchase a new car and open a few credit cards under your name.
You'll lose more money than you have. And you'll never have a chance to prevent it. Because all the information will be "leaked" from 3rd parties.
There is a straightforward way to solve this -- seek out and elect officials who are willing to transfer liability for fraudulent transactions from the person who happens to match the magic number used to initiate the transaction to the institution granting the debt. It might not be easy to find those people and get them past the various financial lobbies, but it would address the problem very effectively. The current situation is madness, people who do absolutely nothing wrong, or even foolish, are left holding the bag for huge amounts of fraud.
Re:Good reporting there, submitter
on
LLVM 2.2 Released
·
· Score: 1
Who is denying that the words have more than meaning? What exactly do you interpret "acting like words only have the meanings that you endorse" to be talking about?
My intent was to imply that yes, free often means Free in the way that GNU, etc use it, but that it is tiresome to act like that is the only meaning it has. I'm pretty sure that is what I did, because in the world I live in, when someone says something, it is best to interpret what they are saying in the context of their own words, not in whatever context happens to be rhetorically convenient for me.
So the very first poster said 'free' and meant, as you clarified, less restrictive for developers, then the OP replied and said "neener-neener that's not free", clearly meaning "Free" and then I said, "he didn't mean Free, so what's your problem?" and then you said, "hey, you are trying to deny that free can mean Free", which has nothing to do with what I was talking about.
It is impossible for somebody to willingly overpay for something. Value is in the eye of the buyer.
I see where you are coming from, that people are paying higher prices than they would be in a better functioning market, but I'm not sure that the seller automatically gets blamed, or even that the situation needs remedy. Take something like tobacco -- essentially every single user would actually be better off in the long term if they stopped using tobacco, but if you asked them, on average, they aren't going to want the government to take away their tobacco. So the government probably still has a role in making sure that tobacco companies aren't spiking the water, but I'm not sure that it gets to tell an adult where to spend their money. It's a bit of a stretch, but nicotine addiction is at least as coercive as the sunk costs that joe somebody has in one form of hardware or another.
Re:Good reporting there, submitter
on
LLVM 2.2 Released
·
· Score: 1
You know perfectly well that he meant freer as in less restrictive. Acting like words only have the meanings that you endorse is tiresome.
And yes, the GPL is more restrictive than something like BSD. Plenty of people think those restrictions are to good effect, but they are still restrictions in the sense that there are things that can be done with BSD(or similar) code that cannot be done with GPL code.
Or, you can just use lots of different Open IDs and maintain your own status quo.
For most users, having their primary email address compromised leads to the same situation, so the transition to Open ID won't really change anything, except it allows you and your Open ID provider to pick the level of authentication, rather than the provider of whatever service you want to use.
Re:Then call me a sociopath.
on
Ethics In IT
·
· Score: 1
So what does an enlightened person do? Presumably, they spend all of their time trying to help these people, because if ignoring the one right in front of you is bad, ignoring the ones that you know are out there even though they aren't right in front of you would be even worse.
As a pragmatic cynic, I would suggest that one of the best ways to spend time helping other people is to leave them alone and make sure you take care of yourself, and to be productive and fair in your dealings with others, because it has been shown that both of those things lead to prosperity. Productivity means that you have something to offer to others, and fairness means that they can trust you to deliver it. A rising tide floats all boats and all that tripe.
Modern versions of both are so good that it isn't likely to matter much, so just doing whatever is most convenient and remembering to store unprocessed data is probably a better strategy.
Actually, the goal is to maximize profit. This may mean getting a few customers to pay a very large amount for the software(this is, more or less, what in house development is, so it could be argued to be the most common model), or it could mean getting as many people as possible to pay for the software, or it could be some where in between.
I don't think the anti piracy features are really aimed at people who would otherwise pay for the software though, I think that they are aimed at people who attempt to sell the software to unsuspecting buyers without paying Microsoft.
Not per box sold, but they make(income, revenues are higher) about $11 billion a year on operating systems, and about $10 billion on 'business products':
The margins are higher in the operating systems business, and 80% of that business is OEM sales, so I don't think they are subsidizing the OEM channel. It probably has to do with the big chunks of retail sales that are in store mark up and wholesale mark up(these can easily represent more than 50% of the price you pay), and the fact that they let OEMs do all the work, so OEM revenue is essentially free(incrementally anyway).
Slashdot Mirror
I'm pretty sure the shuttle can do what you describe. This particular satellite certainly isn't worth the risk.
If it ever becomes worthwhile to regularly leave orbit, debris will be a short term impediment, not a centuries long problem. (the reasoning here is easy -- the easier it is to send stuff into/out of orbit, the easier it is to send stuff into orbit to knock the junk out of the way)
It is still stupid to wantonly pollute various orbits, but the primary effect of blowing this particular satellite up will be that it deorbits in pieces.
How's that corporate free life treating you?
I see you finally finished building your computer. Which was more time consuming, smelting the metals, building the components or writing/adapting the software?
How is Overton these days?
Your post is self-referentially ironic though, how fun. Not to mention the dozen or so preceding posts, to this story alone, that questioned the wisdom of copyright.
Do you eat peanut butter?
See:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peanut#Peanuts_and_Aflatoxin
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aflatoxin
Aflatoxin is also found in corn and other grains. Generally small amounts that aren't a big deal.
I think it is stupid to cut yourself open and stick in a little chip, but the cancer risk is pretty far down on the list of reasons not to do it.
I guess it comes down to whether your question/concern is more like "Is it perfect?" or more like "Is it better than a password?". Of course it isn't perfect, but for lots of purposes, a physical token is quite a lot better than a password. As you say, no one really knows how hard it is to compromise the physical tokens(you sort of can't until you have done it), but there are plenty of people who think it is hard enough.
So he is more vulnerable to people who really want to get into his house without him noticing. People that don't care if he notices can just use a sledge. I expect more of the latter at my house, and still very few, so as a calculated risk, I don't think this is a bad one. Still, I don't want a chip in my arm, keys work fine.
MAC addresses are intended to be device specific because it is convenient for something like a router to be able to tell different devices apart, even if they are two copies of the same device(this just about sums up my knowledge of MAC addresses). That some people tried to use this as security is a historical accident. The issue is just as you have it, you have to rely on the hardware telling the truth.
What is being talked about here is this stuff:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Security_token
where the hardware implementation isn't necessarily physically connected to the computer. I sort of answered you question in the context of hardware that is connected(sort of in the sense that I wasn't thinking about the distinction), in which case, one way to implement authentication is to have the private half of a private/public key pair on the device, and have the server send a secret that has been encrypted with the public key -- only the holder of the private key will be able to read the secret.
In the sense that the client sends a blob of ostensibly unique data to the server, yes, this is just like a MAC address.
In the sense that the client receives a blob of data from the server and returns the result of cryptographically signing that blob, no, it is nothing like a MAC address.
Do you mean what I said was an amusing anecdote, or do you mean that you are going to relate that I said it to others as an amusing anecdote?
FWIW, your first post was worded in a very certain matter, which is why I had a defensive posture in my post.
Any news on V2.0?
Setting up a delicious account with links to them would take you an extra five minutes the next time you installed, and probably save you that five minutes the time after that...
Is your post a euphemism for "the search is awful"?
This has been in Firefox since at least version 2.0, probably earlier. You don't have to believe me, but I am using version 2 and it works just fine.
Then they'll use that database to take out a second mortgage on your home, purchase a new car and open a few credit cards under your name.
You'll lose more money than you have. And you'll never have a chance to prevent it. Because all the information will be "leaked" from 3rd parties.
There is a straightforward way to solve this -- seek out and elect officials who are willing to transfer liability for fraudulent transactions from the person who happens to match the magic number used to initiate the transaction to the institution granting the debt. It might not be easy to find those people and get them past the various financial lobbies, but it would address the problem very effectively. The current situation is madness, people who do absolutely nothing wrong, or even foolish, are left holding the bag for huge amounts of fraud.
Who is denying that the words have more than meaning? What exactly do you interpret "acting like words only have the meanings that you endorse" to be talking about?
My intent was to imply that yes, free often means Free in the way that GNU, etc use it, but that it is tiresome to act like that is the only meaning it has. I'm pretty sure that is what I did, because in the world I live in, when someone says something, it is best to interpret what they are saying in the context of their own words, not in whatever context happens to be rhetorically convenient for me.
So the very first poster said 'free' and meant, as you clarified, less restrictive for developers, then the OP replied and said "neener-neener that's not free", clearly meaning "Free" and then I said, "he didn't mean Free, so what's your problem?" and then you said, "hey, you are trying to deny that free can mean Free", which has nothing to do with what I was talking about.
Maybe I misunderstood your intent?
It is impossible for somebody to willingly overpay for something. Value is in the eye of the buyer.
I see where you are coming from, that people are paying higher prices than they would be in a better functioning market, but I'm not sure that the seller automatically gets blamed, or even that the situation needs remedy. Take something like tobacco -- essentially every single user would actually be better off in the long term if they stopped using tobacco, but if you asked them, on average, they aren't going to want the government to take away their tobacco. So the government probably still has a role in making sure that tobacco companies aren't spiking the water, but I'm not sure that it gets to tell an adult where to spend their money. It's a bit of a stretch, but nicotine addiction is at least as coercive as the sunk costs that joe somebody has in one form of hardware or another.
You know perfectly well that he meant freer as in less restrictive. Acting like words only have the meanings that you endorse is tiresome.
And yes, the GPL is more restrictive than something like BSD. Plenty of people think those restrictions are to good effect, but they are still restrictions in the sense that there are things that can be done with BSD(or similar) code that cannot be done with GPL code.
Or, you can just use lots of different Open IDs and maintain your own status quo.
For most users, having their primary email address compromised leads to the same situation, so the transition to Open ID won't really change anything, except it allows you and your Open ID provider to pick the level of authentication, rather than the provider of whatever service you want to use.
Are you captain of the good ship Ridiculous?
So what does an enlightened person do? Presumably, they spend all of their time trying to help these people, because if ignoring the one right in front of you is bad, ignoring the ones that you know are out there even though they aren't right in front of you would be even worse.
As a pragmatic cynic, I would suggest that one of the best ways to spend time helping other people is to leave them alone and make sure you take care of yourself, and to be productive and fair in your dealings with others, because it has been shown that both of those things lead to prosperity. Productivity means that you have something to offer to others, and fairness means that they can trust you to deliver it. A rising tide floats all boats and all that tripe.
Only if you microphones are better than your A/D.
Modern versions of both are so good that it isn't likely to matter much, so just doing whatever is most convenient and remembering to store unprocessed data is probably a better strategy.
Actually, the goal is to maximize profit. This may mean getting a few customers to pay a very large amount for the software(this is, more or less, what in house development is, so it could be argued to be the most common model), or it could mean getting as many people as possible to pay for the software, or it could be some where in between.
I don't think the anti piracy features are really aimed at people who would otherwise pay for the software though, I think that they are aimed at people who attempt to sell the software to unsuspecting buyers without paying Microsoft.
That's not-even-hypothetical. It's like me asking if sending a letter to Jupiter can get me ownership of the Southern half of Pluto.
I suggest the best way to answer the question is to do it and find out.
Not per box sold, but they make(income, revenues are higher) about $11 billion a year on operating systems, and about $10 billion on 'business products':
http://www.microsoft.com/msft/reports/ar07/staticversion/10k_fr_dis.html
The margins are higher in the operating systems business, and 80% of that business is OEM sales, so I don't think they are subsidizing the OEM channel. It probably has to do with the big chunks of retail sales that are in store mark up and wholesale mark up(these can easily represent more than 50% of the price you pay), and the fact that they let OEMs do all the work, so OEM revenue is essentially free(incrementally anyway).