It isn't a "would be" implemented. It's already done. Basically, there is no way to prevent your ISP from altering your traffic, because everything that comes over the wire passes through them. You have no way of telling whether the ads served on a website are the ads that that website sold or whether the ISP inserted them without controlling both ends of the communication.
Dan Kaminsky developed a method to detect this kind of tampering , which at least can prevent ISPs from hiding the fact that they're doing this. It's in the second half of this talk, from last year: http://events.ccc.de/congress/2007/Fahrplan/events/2393.en.html
I don't know who would buy a $499 phone with a 2 year $59/mo contract for a device that will be admittedly be superseded by something much better. 1.) Waiting for a 3G phone is pointless if you don't have 3G service available in your area. 2.) Waiting for the next iPhone means waiting an unknown length of time. It could be years. 3.) The contract doesn't say you have to use the same phone for two years. If a better one comes out, you can switch. 4.) Many people are more interested with having constant access to things like email, which doesn't need 3G speeds.
If Wifi is available and you want to stick around a hotspot you might as well take out your notebook. This assumes you're carrying your notebook around everywhere you go. In which case, why would you buy an internet-capable phone at all?
Although you could start downloading large files and other forms of communication while tethered, aren't you still limited by the badwidth of the phone? Yes, but AT&T expects you to not be constantly (or even regularly) using maximum bandwidth on your phone. It's probable that a user with a tethered laptop uses more bandwidth (on average) than someone just using their phone.
Their style of questions was grilling you more and more and going deeper and deeper into the questions and technicalities until you failed. The purpose of this is to see at what point you start bullshitting them. It isn't about how technical you are, it's about how willing you are to admit that you don't know something. No questions about management? The whole thing was about management.
Privatunes is aimed at guaranteeing the privacy of users but also rights as consumers to freely share and trade the songs they have purchased. Lack of DRM doesn't magically give you the right to "freely share and trade". May as well call it Piratunes.
But it's possible to use youtube, and the various google apps also supposedly work, no?
YouTube, as demonstrated, works by way of a custom application outside of Safari. Flash isn't involved at all. Also, I can't think of any Google apps that use Flash or Java. Google Maps is also included as a custom application outside of Safari, but I can't think of any particular reason why you couldn't use it on the web through Safari, as it is implemented with JavaScript/AJAX.
To me, in 2007, phone service should be less than $20/mo, but being that people are willing to spend over $100/household for phones, the phone service people will gladly take their money.
You're not really paying for the ability to talk on the phone or connect to the internet. You're paying for the ability to talk on the phone or connect to the internet more or less anywhere. Phone companies are unscrupulous bastards, yes, but that's not the only reason phone service costs what it does.
This is a whole bunch of speculation and personal value divisions presented as if it were a research paper.
It's not a research paper, it's an essay. The citation at the top of the page even says so. Also, the author has done research (see "Methodological Background"), but this article isn't meant to be a presentation of that research. If you want research papers, she's written a few.
Then my suggestion to you is to gather data, study said data, and report on it in a straightforward manner.
The author of this article is a PhD student specializing on this topic with quite a few publications that meet this standard. This is not presented as one of them. Do not hold up a self-described "blog essay" to the standards of an academic publication.
The new Dock is awesome, though. It is not 3D eye candy, it actually is 3D.
No, sorry. It's 2D that looks 3D. You don't need 3D to create the reflection effect, or to have objects appear to be behind other objects. Also, Stacks don't work quite how you seem to think. They're just a different view for Dock folders. You can't create a "second row" of apps, for instance.
Re:Please oh please oh please, DITCH STACKS!
on
The Roadmap to Leopard?
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
. Unless I'm mistaken, stacks are HORRIBLE!!!
You are mistaken. Both views have a "Show In Finder" option, and the grid view most certainly does contain text. The screenshots on Apple's site, as well as the keynote demo both show this, which casts some doubt on everything else you've said.
I'm also curious about how they are handling mounted volumes. I noticed that they were not on the desktop anymore
The current Finder preferences have the option to not show volumes on the desktop. In all probability they've just changed the defaults. I've been using it this way for so long I didn't even notice they changed it.
I guess maybe it hasn't turned out to be such a revolution on the development side after all.
The point of the procedural and user-driven content generation is that it allows them to create a really friggin' huge universe without having to create all of the assets for it. It still takes a lot of work to come up with methods that scale up without becoming repetitive and boring, but it can drastically expand the scope of the game. A huge free-roaming game today like GTA 4 or Oblivion is "only" about 16 square miles in size, because of the large amount of time it takes the artists to manually detail it all. So, if nothing else (and Will has a lot of interesting ideas going into Spore), Spore is likely to herald the adoption of procedural techniques to build larger universes.
He feels this piece of news is not important enough to be posted compared to other more important stuff. That's his comment.
That isn't what he said at all, and it would still be dumb if it was. If the story isn't worth posting, surely it isn't worth commenting on, right?
You Apple fanbois
My comment has nothing to do with Apple, and everything to do with the quality of "discussion" around here. Also, boy is spelled with a "y", not an "i".
Can someone please tell me how Apple pulls this off? I mean the frigging phone isn't even on the market yet, and we have Slashdot stories talking about redesigning the web to work on this thing. Give me a break.
You had a break, but you wasted it commenting (at length) on a story that you seem to be actively disinterested in.
Because it means they can charge 'extra' for the new-improved version. It costs them nothing more to produce.
They can charge extra because it is different. Who ever said that retail price was based on the cost to produce? A $20 widget doesn't cost $10 more to produce than a $10 widget with fewer features.
By now introducing DRM-less tracks, EMI have now made an extra £18 by providing something I should have got in the first place.
EMI doesn't make any more money unless you choose to buy. Why did you buy it in the first place if you "should have" gotten something more?
If they add another 'upgrade' to 320kbps quality audio [...]
They could charge whatever they want, but that doesn't mean anyone has to pay it. Why is that hard to comprehend?
Slashdot Mirror
It isn't a "would be" implemented. It's already done. Basically, there is no way to prevent your ISP from altering your traffic, because everything that comes over the wire passes through them. You have no way of telling whether the ads served on a website are the ads that that website sold or whether the ISP inserted them without controlling both ends of the communication.
Dan Kaminsky developed a method to detect this kind of tampering , which at least can prevent ISPs from hiding the fact that they're doing this. It's in the second half of this talk, from last year: http://events.ccc.de/congress/2007/Fahrplan/events/2393.en.html
2.) Waiting for the next iPhone means waiting an unknown length of time. It could be years.
3.) The contract doesn't say you have to use the same phone for two years. If a better one comes out, you can switch.
4.) Many people are more interested with having constant access to things like email, which doesn't need 3G speeds. If Wifi is available and you want to stick around a hotspot you might as well take out your notebook. This assumes you're carrying your notebook around everywhere you go. In which case, why would you buy an internet-capable phone at all?
Good video acceleration? From VIA?
He means accelerated MPEG-2/MPEG-4 decoding, not graphics.
But it's possible to use youtube, and the various google apps also supposedly work, no?
YouTube, as demonstrated, works by way of a custom application outside of Safari. Flash isn't involved at all. Also, I can't think of any Google apps that use Flash or Java. Google Maps is also included as a custom application outside of Safari, but I can't think of any particular reason why you couldn't use it on the web through Safari, as it is implemented with JavaScript/AJAX.
Remember all that hype about someone opening a quicktime video on a webpage that used coregraphics/quartz composer to show you your own webcam image?
I remember that being a really stupid hypefest that got spread around a bunch of forums by people that didn't have any idea how it works.
Just hook up some form of network output
You can't. It doesn't work that way. There is no "network output" from a QuickTime movie: it's a movie file, not an application.
Can you not do this with AT&T?
You can, actually. But don't expect fearmongering idiots to mention that.
To me, in 2007, phone service should be less than $20/mo, but being that people are willing to spend over $100/household for phones, the phone service people will gladly take their money.
You're not really paying for the ability to talk on the phone or connect to the internet. You're paying for the ability to talk on the phone or connect to the internet more or less anywhere. Phone companies are unscrupulous bastards, yes, but that's not the only reason phone service costs what it does.
How hard is it to make a VOIP application that works in Safari?
Without Flash or Java? I'd say pretty damn hard.
This is a whole bunch of speculation and personal value divisions presented as if it were a research paper.
It's not a research paper, it's an essay. The citation at the top of the page even says so. Also, the author has done research (see "Methodological Background"), but this article isn't meant to be a presentation of that research. If you want research papers, she's written a few.
Then my suggestion to you is to gather data, study said data, and report on it in a straightforward manner.
The author of this article is a PhD student specializing on this topic with quite a few publications that meet this standard. This is not presented as one of them. Do not hold up a self-described "blog essay" to the standards of an academic publication.
BECAUSE they can customize them as they will and install software like games and productivity applications
Games and productivity applications? How's that for self-defeating!
The new Dock is awesome, though. It is not 3D eye candy, it actually is 3D.
No, sorry. It's 2D that looks 3D. You don't need 3D to create the reflection effect, or to have objects appear to be behind other objects. Also, Stacks don't work quite how you seem to think. They're just a different view for Dock folders. You can't create a "second row" of apps, for instance.
. Unless I'm mistaken, stacks are HORRIBLE!!!
You are mistaken. Both views have a "Show In Finder" option, and the grid view most certainly does contain text. The screenshots on Apple's site, as well as the keynote demo both show this, which casts some doubt on everything else you've said.
I'm also curious about how they are handling mounted volumes. I noticed that they were not on the desktop anymore
The current Finder preferences have the option to not show volumes on the desktop. In all probability they've just changed the defaults. I've been using it this way for so long I didn't even notice they changed it.
I guess maybe it hasn't turned out to be such a revolution on the development side after all.
The point of the procedural and user-driven content generation is that it allows them to create a really friggin' huge universe without having to create all of the assets for it. It still takes a lot of work to come up with methods that scale up without becoming repetitive and boring, but it can drastically expand the scope of the game. A huge free-roaming game today like GTA 4 or Oblivion is "only" about 16 square miles in size, because of the large amount of time it takes the artists to manually detail it all. So, if nothing else (and Will has a lot of interesting ideas going into Spore), Spore is likely to herald the adoption of procedural techniques to build larger universes.
He feels this piece of news is not important enough to be posted compared to other more important stuff. That's his comment.
That isn't what he said at all, and it would still be dumb if it was. If the story isn't worth posting, surely it isn't worth commenting on, right?
You Apple fanbois
My comment has nothing to do with Apple, and everything to do with the quality of "discussion" around here. Also, boy is spelled with a "y", not an "i".
Can someone please tell me how Apple pulls this off? I mean the frigging phone isn't even on the market yet, and we have Slashdot stories talking about redesigning the web to work on this thing. Give me a break.
You had a break, but you wasted it commenting (at length) on a story that you seem to be actively disinterested in.
Never if my fucking life have I heard of a blook.
The internet is a very big place.
The term "blook" made the list... which is weird because I've never even heard that word before.
You didn't make the list, either, so why should it contain only words that you've heard of?
Because it means they can charge 'extra' for the new-improved version.
It costs them nothing more to produce.
They can charge extra because it is different. Who ever said that retail price was based on the cost to produce? A $20 widget doesn't cost $10 more to produce than a $10 widget with fewer features.
By now introducing DRM-less tracks, EMI have now made an extra £18 by providing something I should have got in the first place.
EMI doesn't make any more money unless you choose to buy. Why did you buy it in the first place if you "should have" gotten something more?
If they add another 'upgrade' to 320kbps quality audio [...]
They could charge whatever they want, but that doesn't mean anyone has to pay it. Why is that hard to comprehend?
3. Wait for consumers to grow angry and realize the restrictions placed on their media
Given iTunes sales previous sales figures, I think we're still waiting for this step to happen.