There's already a documented way to coalesce arbitrarily many bitcoin micropayments to a single party into exactly two blockchain transactions without involving a trusted third party. It bears a striking similarity to the two-transaction authorize-capture flow used by VISA and friends, but with the added bonus that the payee isn't trusted to capture for the correct amount.
This (like all smart contracts) is a fairly advanced use-case that basic wallet software isn't capable of, but can readily be built as an add-on that operates as a client of bitcoind.
Fiendishly, breathtakingly complex world-simulation engine from Bay 12 Games. Comes equipped with "Fortress mode" city simulator, "Adventure mode" Roguelike play, and "Arena mode" battle sandbox. The wiki is pretty much required reading.
Not just 1 but 2 links to tvtropes...you are really trying to eat up everyone's time aren't you?
Well, they are links to adjacent tropes, and together are intended to clarify how subtlety or lack thereof can be applied to cussing... and besides, if you're here you have time begging to be eaten up.
Pages on various wiki sites often contain valuable insight, even if it does tend to result in too much time sunk in a random wiki walk.
Knowing how to drop a precision F-strike at the appropriate time is one thing. Indiscriminately carpeting the place with cluster F-bombs is a waste of perfectly good shock ammunition.
This is done by way of a process which duplicates every 6th frame.
Not exactly. The telecine 2:3 pulldown conversion is from 24 full frames per second to ~60 interlaced fields (half-frames) per second, which means 4 input frames get converted to 10 output fields. In a straight 2:3 pulldown, film frames ABCD are output as interlaced fields AABBBCCDDD. This transform interacts badly with naïve deinterlacing though: if you just pair off the fields, you get AA BB BC CD DD, leaving you with two mixed-up frames and no intact C frame. Some other pulldown patterns are better behaved when naïvely deinterlaced, such as 2:3:3:2 which produces AA BB BC CC DD.
Many nonlinear editing toolkits, and maybe even a few viewing sets, can recognize when pulldown has been applied and remove it, reconstructing video at the original frame rate.
I think you have value, transactions, and blocks a bit confused.
A typical transaction redeems the output of one or more prior transactions as its inputs, and generates one or more new outputs. Each output specifies the conditions required to redeem it; usually this condition is to sign the new transaction with a specific key. Any excess value from the inputs that is not directed to an output is deemed a transaction fee. Executing a transaction consists simply of specifying inputs and outputs, signing it, and sending it out to some Bitcoin peers.
A block is a data structure that contains a header including a proof of work, a reference to the preceding block it was based on (forming the block chain), a special "coinbase" transaction specified by the miner that disburses collected transaction fees and subsidies, and a collection of whatever additional transactions the miner sees fit to include in the block (subject to a few limits intended to prevent denial of service attacks).
While I agree that economic majority is a rather nebulous concept, it ultimately boils down to whether nodes agree on the validity of a transaction, and in this context, as Lessig so eloquently put it, code is law.
Normally, however, a change proposal is floated with the community, and if adoption seems likely but not certain, the course of action may be to take a poll by specifying a voting period in which miners are asked to include a vote in any blocks they find if they support the proposal. In this context, it is quite literally 'one block, one vote'. In the case of pooled mining, it's up to pool participants to work out how they want to vote with their combined power, with the default being to acquiesce to the pool operator's preference.
If the program does terminal interaction, make it output a short
notice like this when it starts in an interactive mode:
<program> Copyright (C) <year> <name of author>
This program comes with ABSOLUTELY NO WARRANTY; for details type `show w'.
This is free software, and you are welcome to redistribute it
under certain conditions; type `show c' for details.
The hypothetical commands `show w' and `show c' should show the appropriate
parts of the General Public License.
Liberty is not static; it must periodically be re-conquered from those who would deny us.
It's pretty obvious to me that liberty is not static. It has to be an instance method, and a virtual one at that, given how frequently it seems to be overridden.
You'd think they'd learn from others' gaffes. Western Digital had a problem with Velociraptor firmware where an unsigned 32-bit count of milliseconds since power on, combined with poorly written read timeout ("TLER") logic, caused all read requests submitted within TLER-timeout of counter rollover to fail. Imagine the confusion that ensues when a RAID controller (or Linux md) sees all its drives vanish for a few seconds then come back...
Protocols can be devised in such systems which are completely eavesdrop tolerant, such that even if eavesdropping did occur, it would be indecipherable, even if one were to try to listen to the entire communication, including the protocol setup itself, it would sound like undecipherable gibberish right from the moment that the encryption began.
Such protocols can be vulnerable to MitM attacks, but that is why they are really only reliable as encryption when the communication is not subjected to any routing.
The criteria you give are accurate for key agreement in the absence of a preexisting trust anchor, such as the classic Diffie-Hellman key exchange protocol. However, once a trust anchor is established — for example, by meeting and agreeing on a shared secret or verifying one another's public keys in person — that shared secret or known-good public key can be used for authenticating or verifying digital signatures on messages that arrive over an untrusted communication path.
It's unusual to see/. mention a company that has a lick of design sense unless it's either Apple or someone on the defending end of a patent infringement claim from Apple. So when can we expect to see a lawsuit over the rear doors having too clean of a profile?
(To the humor-impaired: the second sentence is a joke.)
Communication security is a combination of integrity, authentication, and optionally privacy. You also trust the postman not to modify what you write or forge your signature on your postcards, even though there is no privacy provided by a postcard.
Now if only they'd clout Kontera and similar advertising providers with this patent. I don't want the word "books" to automatically become a pay-per-click link to Amazon, thanks.
If I recall correctly, at least in humans, influenza hemagglutinin 5 tends to attach very well down deep in the lungs but not so well higher in the airway. Therefore H5 flus are particularly nasty if you get one, but they haven't historically been very contagious. I have to wonder if that's where the difference lies: something improving on H5's ability to attach higher in the airway, without compromising its existing affinity too much.
Usability does not come from gradients and curved corners.
Graphic design and usability are two different disciplines. Anyone who wants a good introduction to usability could easily do worse than reading Jakob Nielsen's Alertbox column. (I hesitate to call it a blog for several reasons, not least because it predates the coining of the term!)
You are right. We should have dual posted speed limits.
California already does -- speed limits are capped at 55 for commercial trucks and anyone towing a trailer, even if the speed limit is otherwise higher.
You can't talk about the information created by a game at all in a money-making context without making yourself legally liable to the league.
NBA tried to claim that in NBA v. STATS. At 1088, 1093, 1094 [come on Google, put in page and paragraph anchors!]:
NBA games do not constitute "original works of authorship" and thus do not fall within the subject matter of copyright protection... I decline NBA's invitation to stretch the Copyright Act's grant of exclusivity to subject matters so far removed and qualitatively different from those at the core of its protection.... Similarly, NBA has failed to show an infringement of its copyright in the broadcasts of NBA games.... The mere fact that the information conveyed by defendants often is acquired by viewing the broadcasts of NBA games does not alter the fact that defendants have not copied the "`constituent elements of the [broadcasts of NBA games] that are original.'"
A state law claim of misappropriation was dismissed on appeal on the basis that federal copyright law preempts the state law. The 2nd Circuit's decision at 851 quotes Computer Associates v. Altai at 717 (this case is a good read for the Slashdot crowd: copyright, trade secret and software):
An action will not be saved from preemption by elements such as awareness or intent, which alter `the action's scope but not its nature'.... Following this `extra element' test, we have held that unfair competition and misappropriation claims grounded solely in the copying of a plaintiff's protected expression are preempted by section 301.
That said, the above case law may be merely academic if the sports leagues are just trying to run you out of business with legal fees and hassles.
NFL's weapon in this context is trademark, not copyright. You can talk about the score when Oakland played Pittsburgh all day long, but if you mention the teams' actual names in a commercial context you'll likely need a license. That's also why so many ads for sports bars talk about watching the "big game" or "football championship". NFL's trademark enforcement is so over-the-top I've actually heard radio ads where they lampooned it (and probably tempted fate) by advertising a "Su[BLEEP]wl party".
Evolution at the middle layers is also hampered by the proliferation of middleboxes: monkeying with packet headers for policy-enforcement and profit. It's also pretty well de rigueur for IT departments to configure both middleboxes and "smart" switches to drop any unrecognized middle layer packets.
"Longhorn" was a truly epic vision, apparently not within the capability of Microsoft's organization to deliver within any reasonable time frame. That may have made Vista as delivered... an epic fail. (rimshot)
I have to give them proper respect for what they did manage to do: stuff in the NT 6 kernel, a compositing window manager, concurrent user support in Client-Side Caching (which I heard was a nightmare to add)... and, unfortunately, a whole cargo shipload of slowdown inducing stuff like creating persistent local shadow copies by default or doing plug-and-play rescans for no easily apparent reason. Can't win 'em all, I guess.
That doesn't mean it makes any sense from a technical or scientific point of view. The only reason that is the law is because special interests have decided to go with delusional impossible ideas to protect their profit engine.
From a technical point of view, licensing information would be metadata, and therefore not part of the content proper. The OP's headache stems from the fact that in current practice this metadata is not typically recorded or transmitted with the file.
In my opinion, an ideal DRM scheme would be one that, in terms of design decisions, always favors the machine owner over the rightsholder and never uses technical means to attempt to prevent — or to notify the rightsholder, their agents or law enforcement agents of — any action actually or potentially infringing upon others' exclusive rights. Instead, it simply and unobtrusively records and stores (out-of-band, without adding identifying information to the file bits) provenance and rights information for files, and allows the user to make their own decisions. Whether to block, prompt about or permit actually or potentially infringing actions would be a policy set by the machine's owner.
I'll grant that -- the accreditation document is not the knowledge. Perhaps the problem is that the accreditation document is used by employers as a marker for the knowledge, and they are willing to accept a ton of false positives and false negatives in an early rough screening pass through the applications as long as that pass both reduces the number of applications and does not worsen the odds of each applicant actually having knowledge.
Slashdot Mirror
There's already a documented way to coalesce arbitrarily many bitcoin micropayments to a single party into exactly two blockchain transactions without involving a trusted third party. It bears a striking similarity to the two-transaction authorize-capture flow used by VISA and friends, but with the added bonus that the payee isn't trusted to capture for the correct amount.
This (like all smart contracts) is a fairly advanced use-case that basic wallet software isn't capable of, but can readily be built as an add-on that operates as a client of bitcoind.
Dwarf Fortress?
Fiendishly, breathtakingly complex world-simulation engine from Bay 12 Games. Comes equipped with "Fortress mode" city simulator, "Adventure mode" Roguelike play, and "Arena mode" battle sandbox. The wiki is pretty much required reading.
You mean like the MK802 that's been available for quite some time and can be purchased for under $40?
Not just 1 but 2 links to tvtropes...you are really trying to eat up everyone's time aren't you?
Well, they are links to adjacent tropes, and together are intended to clarify how subtlety or lack thereof can be applied to cussing... and besides, if you're here you have time begging to be eaten up.
Pages on various wiki sites often contain valuable insight, even if it does tend to result in too much time sunk in a random wiki walk.
Let him cuss.
Knowing how to drop a precision F-strike at the appropriate time is one thing. Indiscriminately carpeting the place with cluster F-bombs is a waste of perfectly good shock ammunition.
I viddy what you did there...
This is done by way of a process which duplicates every 6th frame.
Not exactly. The telecine 2:3 pulldown conversion is from 24 full frames per second to ~60 interlaced fields (half-frames) per second, which means 4 input frames get converted to 10 output fields. In a straight 2:3 pulldown, film frames ABCD are output as interlaced fields AABBBCCDDD. This transform interacts badly with naïve deinterlacing though: if you just pair off the fields, you get AA BB BC CD DD, leaving you with two mixed-up frames and no intact C frame. Some other pulldown patterns are better behaved when naïvely deinterlaced, such as 2:3:3:2 which produces AA BB BC CC DD.
Many nonlinear editing toolkits, and maybe even a few viewing sets, can recognize when pulldown has been applied and remove it, reconstructing video at the original frame rate.
I think you have value, transactions, and blocks a bit confused.
A typical transaction redeems the output of one or more prior transactions as its inputs, and generates one or more new outputs. Each output specifies the conditions required to redeem it; usually this condition is to sign the new transaction with a specific key. Any excess value from the inputs that is not directed to an output is deemed a transaction fee. Executing a transaction consists simply of specifying inputs and outputs, signing it, and sending it out to some Bitcoin peers.
A block is a data structure that contains a header including a proof of work, a reference to the preceding block it was based on (forming the block chain), a special "coinbase" transaction specified by the miner that disburses collected transaction fees and subsidies, and a collection of whatever additional transactions the miner sees fit to include in the block (subject to a few limits intended to prevent denial of service attacks).
While I agree that economic majority is a rather nebulous concept, it ultimately boils down to whether nodes agree on the validity of a transaction, and in this context, as Lessig so eloquently put it, code is law.
I think this wiki page says it best.
Normally, however, a change proposal is floated with the community, and if adoption seems likely but not certain, the course of action may be to take a poll by specifying a voting period in which miners are asked to include a vote in any blocks they find if they support the proposal. In this context, it is quite literally 'one block, one vote'. In the case of pooled mining, it's up to pool participants to work out how they want to vote with their combined power, with the default being to acquiesce to the pool operator's preference.
If the program does terminal interaction, make it output a short notice like this when it starts in an interactive mode:
<program> Copyright (C) <year> <name of author>
This program comes with ABSOLUTELY NO WARRANTY; for details type `show w'.
This is free software, and you are welcome to redistribute it
under certain conditions; type `show c' for details.
The hypothetical commands `show w' and `show c' should show the appropriate parts of the General Public License.
Liberty is not static; it must periodically be re-conquered from those who would deny us.
It's pretty obvious to me that liberty is not static. It has to be an instance method, and a virtual one at that, given how frequently it seems to be overridden.
You'd think they'd learn from others' gaffes. Western Digital had a problem with Velociraptor firmware where an unsigned 32-bit count of milliseconds since power on, combined with poorly written read timeout ("TLER") logic, caused all read requests submitted within TLER-timeout of counter rollover to fail. Imagine the confusion that ensues when a RAID controller (or Linux md) sees all its drives vanish for a few seconds then come back ...
Protocols can be devised in such systems which are completely eavesdrop tolerant, such that even if eavesdropping did occur, it would be indecipherable, even if one were to try to listen to the entire communication, including the protocol setup itself, it would sound like undecipherable gibberish right from the moment that the encryption began.
Such protocols can be vulnerable to MitM attacks, but that is why they are really only reliable as encryption when the communication is not subjected to any routing.
The criteria you give are accurate for key agreement in the absence of a preexisting trust anchor, such as the classic Diffie-Hellman key exchange protocol. However, once a trust anchor is established — for example, by meeting and agreeing on a shared secret or verifying one another's public keys in person — that shared secret or known-good public key can be used for authenticating or verifying digital signatures on messages that arrive over an untrusted communication path.
It's unusual to see /. mention a company that has a lick of design sense unless it's either Apple or someone on the defending end of a patent infringement claim from Apple. So when can we expect to see a lawsuit over the rear doors having too clean of a profile?
(To the humor-impaired: the second sentence is a joke.)
Communication security is a combination of integrity, authentication, and optionally privacy. You also trust the postman not to modify what you write or forge your signature on your postcards, even though there is no privacy provided by a postcard.
Now if only they'd clout Kontera and similar advertising providers with this patent. I don't want the word "books" to automatically become a pay-per-click link to Amazon, thanks.
If I recall correctly, at least in humans, influenza hemagglutinin 5 tends to attach very well down deep in the lungs but not so well higher in the airway. Therefore H5 flus are particularly nasty if you get one, but they haven't historically been very contagious. I have to wonder if that's where the difference lies: something improving on H5's ability to attach higher in the airway, without compromising its existing affinity too much.
Usability does not come from gradients and curved corners.
Graphic design and usability are two different disciplines. Anyone who wants a good introduction to usability could easily do worse than reading Jakob Nielsen's Alertbox column. (I hesitate to call it a blog for several reasons, not least because it predates the coining of the term!)
You are right. We should have dual posted speed limits.
California already does -- speed limits are capped at 55 for commercial trucks and anyone towing a trailer, even if the speed limit is otherwise higher.
You can't talk about the information created by a game at all in a money-making context without making yourself legally liable to the league.
NBA tried to claim that in NBA v. STATS. At 1088, 1093, 1094 [come on Google, put in page and paragraph anchors!]:
NBA games do not constitute "original works of authorship" and thus do not fall within the subject matter of copyright protection ... I decline NBA's invitation to stretch the Copyright Act's grant of exclusivity to subject matters so far removed and qualitatively different from those at the core of its protection. ... Similarly, NBA has failed to show an infringement of its copyright in the broadcasts of NBA games. ... The mere fact that the information conveyed by defendants often is acquired by viewing the broadcasts of NBA games does not alter the fact that defendants have not copied the "`constituent elements of the [broadcasts of NBA games] that are original.'"
A state law claim of misappropriation was dismissed on appeal on the basis that federal copyright law preempts the state law. The 2nd Circuit's decision at 851 quotes Computer Associates v. Altai at 717 (this case is a good read for the Slashdot crowd: copyright, trade secret and software):
An action will not be saved from preemption by elements such as awareness or intent, which alter `the action's scope but not its nature'.... Following this `extra element' test, we have held that unfair competition and misappropriation claims grounded solely in the copying of a plaintiff's protected expression are preempted by section 301.
That said, the above case law may be merely academic if the sports leagues are just trying to run you out of business with legal fees and hassles.
#include <std/disclaimer.h>
#include <std/ianal.h>
NFL's weapon in this context is trademark, not copyright. You can talk about the score when Oakland played Pittsburgh all day long, but if you mention the teams' actual names in a commercial context you'll likely need a license. That's also why so many ads for sports bars talk about watching the "big game" or "football championship". NFL's trademark enforcement is so over-the-top I've actually heard radio ads where they lampooned it (and probably tempted fate) by advertising a "Su[BLEEP]wl party".
Evolution at the middle layers is also hampered by the proliferation of middleboxes: monkeying with packet headers for policy-enforcement and profit. It's also pretty well de rigueur for IT departments to configure both middleboxes and "smart" switches to drop any unrecognized middle layer packets.
"Longhorn" was a truly epic vision, apparently not within the capability of Microsoft's organization to deliver within any reasonable time frame. That may have made Vista as delivered ... an epic fail. (rimshot)
I have to give them proper respect for what they did manage to do: stuff in the NT 6 kernel, a compositing window manager, concurrent user support in Client-Side Caching (which I heard was a nightmare to add) ... and, unfortunately, a whole cargo shipload of slowdown inducing stuff like creating persistent local shadow copies by default or doing plug-and-play rescans for no easily apparent reason. Can't win 'em all, I guess.
That doesn't mean it makes any sense from a technical or scientific point of view. The only reason that is the law is because special interests have decided to go with delusional impossible ideas to protect their profit engine.
From a technical point of view, licensing information would be metadata, and therefore not part of the content proper. The OP's headache stems from the fact that in current practice this metadata is not typically recorded or transmitted with the file.
In my opinion, an ideal DRM scheme would be one that, in terms of design decisions, always favors the machine owner over the rightsholder and never uses technical means to attempt to prevent — or to notify the rightsholder, their agents or law enforcement agents of — any action actually or potentially infringing upon others' exclusive rights. Instead, it simply and unobtrusively records and stores (out-of-band, without adding identifying information to the file bits) provenance and rights information for files, and allows the user to make their own decisions. Whether to block, prompt about or permit actually or potentially infringing actions would be a policy set by the machine's owner.
I'll grant that -- the accreditation document is not the knowledge. Perhaps the problem is that the accreditation document is used by employers as a marker for the knowledge, and they are willing to accept a ton of false positives and false negatives in an early rough screening pass through the applications as long as that pass both reduces the number of applications and does not worsen the odds of each applicant actually having knowledge.