The issue with defense spending is that the US has to prevent ANY assault while a potential adversary has to only spend enough to succeed at a SINGLE assault. Prevention of ALL attacks requires a huge budget, and is still probably impossible.
I'm fairly sure it's a word/noise which was popularized by The Simpsons. So, certainly it has US roots, but the Simpsons have legs, and I'm surprised it wouldn't have at least campy use outside the US.
One point I'd like to make about encrypting your email: you have to trust the person on the receiving end not to pass your (now) decrypted email on to another party. If you're picked up by the Feds after sending an email detailing an illegal act, I'd look to your "friend", the recipient, before I jumped to the conclusion that the government defeated your encryption.
Linux is my OS of choice - I know exactly what you mean, and I commiserate with you on this. The real point I'd make is that DRM is something added onto the Quicktime file. I'd oppose DRM completely for any purpose, but that doesn't mean that Quicktime is the issue here. The issue is the content provider encoding the file with DRM.
I agree it's unfortunate that Apple leverages Quicktime when trying to watch previews on apple.com, but there are many other sites with trailers which don't require using Apple's proprietary formats. Also, there are several alternative pieces of software which can be used to watch Quicktime videos on your operating system of choice. Microsoft does the same with windows media formats, and there are several alternative software packages that allow you to view most any video created for Windows Media Player. Also, it's not a monopoly because there are many other choices for content distributors. Almost anyone could watch an mpg file on almost any operating system using almost any video player software. As long as there are choices, it's not a monopoly.
While I agree that certainly Comcast was aware of the HFC upstream network limitations, it's also entirely possible that their policy decision was partially based upon the desire to charge for hosting services. If you want to use your connection as a server, they'd like it if you paid for some "hosting package".
The real issue is definitional as well as monetary. How does Comcast define "server" and what are their service package goals? While their ToS can answer the first question, monetary motivations are harder to assess to outsiders.
While mostly true, maybe you've never seen the sorts of repairs that can be required after lightening strikes to an airplane. The points of entry and exit from a lightning strike look very much like burn marks. You're mostly safe in flight - assuming proper design measures have been taken to isolate circuity and fuel, but the airplane still requires a check by an engineer to determine what if any maintenance will be required. A hole in the fuselage can be fixed, but you shouldn't be under the illusion that "nothing" is damaged. Rather, the damage is typically minor.
I certainly hope the cockpit voice recorder can sustain those sorts of loads. The airframe itself is designed (by Federal Aviation Regulation requirements) to withstand only a 9g crash loading. I'd like the cockpit voice recorder to survive when all that's left of the plane are pieces the size of a small book. I have to say, 9g surprised me when I first learned that particular requirement - but your body would be quite unhappy with anything more, and the airframe would have to be prohibitively expensive and heavy to withstand more.
You can try to avoid the argument through your use of a straw man argument by comparing my argument to something which is similar to the RIAA's argument, but you're missing the larger point. What's the object of college? Why take this chemistry class? Answer? To learn the basics of whatever the class is teaching. The instructor has constructed the class in such a way so that the homework contributes to the educational process of the class, and students are only hurting themselves by not doing the work. At the same time, they're only helping themselves if they use this as a learning tool. Leechers are those students who do not contribute to the discussion and don't use the resources of the pool to understand the material but who instead copy the material and turn it in. That's the danger of using this system of collaboration via facebook which rewards simply SHOWING UP. There has to be more, or you're permitting cheating via leeching. Encouraged or simply tolerated, cheating is contrary to every academic code I've agreed to as as precondition of matriculation.
Students learning new collaboration techniques is an adaptive strategy to cope with the need to understand new information Instead of using the Internet to download or buy a solutions manual (they exist - there are enough poor grad students), the students here were studying and collaborating on problems.
Now, how's this different from a face-to-face study session? The most obvious way is that there are potentially "leechers" in this situation who benefit from the exchange without contributing anything of value in exchange. Now, we've probably all met that person in the "real" study session who takes without giving, but they're seldom invited to the next session. In this online example, there are potentially many more leeches than not.
I would like to point out, however, that the students will have a very hard time understanding the material if they never manage to get the right answers on their problem sets. In that respect, it's very much like real life. As an Engineer, I collaborate endlessly about many problems. I use face-to-face contact, telephone, email, and most prominently - instant messenger.
Technology is not the problem here, but rather the way in which it was used. A facebook study group makes perfect sense, but if the solutions to each problem are posted there, it simply becomes a cheating tool for those too lazy to do their own work. If the group were small - 3-5, and the method of interaction required participation from each member, this would probably not be an issue.
I wouldn't judge the way you've chosen to parent your child - it's entirely your business and you are the one who knows what sort of access should be allowed. It sounds like you are an involved parent, and that's a huge step beyond where many people are.
I was curious though, if you had shared all this information with her (e.g. told her that you reviewed her chat logs, explained the sort of control you asserted)? I ask as a future parent myself - just curious what your approach was and what sort of response it received.
MPEG, fine. AVI? Well, now you're starting to get into dangerous waters - a lot of the codecs that people on windows machines encode avi files with aren't either open or available to users on alternative operating systems.
I think it probably stems from a desire to control content, honestly, but if using shockwave which is available on other OS's is their method of content control, I can at least support the fact that it can allow me to watch videos without the need of codecs.
You're right, however. A simple video download would be far simpler, would allow zoom, and would allow us to watch it at our own convenience.
I agree - it would be much nicer to not have to install any video playing software in order to watch videos online... why *can't* they play in my text-based browser, afterall?
Seriously, though it's superior to AOL video or video from CNN that require you to have WMV support in your browser - and despite Flip4mac, that's still not an easy feat in OSX. I'm a huge supporter of platform-independent video, and flash player is at least a decent alternative towards that end.
Again, yup, this was on Digg. So what? The sites may occasionally (ok, maybe relatively frequently) contain similar stories, but the sites are fundamentally different. Digg is content oriented (many many posts of stories) and Slashdot is comment oriented (many many comments on all manner of things tangentially related to the article).
I like Digg just as much as the next guy and read it frequently just to get a zeitgeist of interesting tech news, but for interesting discussion on the story, I come to Slashdot. So, maybe for now, can we just say that's enough "I saw it first on *site*"? I guarantee, even before it was on Digg, someone saw it first and can give the same response to Diggers.
It's nice that the hosting is donated... does this give any advantages to Oregon State students? Ultra-fast downloads over the U's internal network connections, for example?
Being closed to the public is probably going to happen with any "lab" at a university, but I'd bet that there are quite a few opportunities for student involvement with the lab if you know where to look.
yes, but it's still descriptive of a 2-factor authentication protocol. The card, be it printed or smart, is fulfilling the same purpose. The difference is that a smartcard is easier for customers to use.
You've essentially described a two-factor authentication system, but one which requires more from the user than inserting a USB keyfob or Smartcard. I suspect, however, that a smartcard would be much easier for customers to use and would be less prone to user error than entering numbers on a randomly arranged keypad from a lengthy authentication card.
In all the states I have lived in, refusing to take the breathalyzer test in the field necessitates an arrest on suspicion of DUI to be determined by a blood alcohol test (if you've requested it).
General refusal to submit to any sobriety test would require the arresting officer to make a sworn statement that you were drunk based upon the physical indicators he observed (slurred speech, slow reflexes, alcohol on breath, etc). Failure to complete a test is NOT evidence you are drunk. It doesn't help you out, though.
So sure, by all means, go down to the station and request the blood test. But refusing to take the breathalyzer DOES NOT by default imply failure of the test. *Evidence* is required by our judicial system, remember?
I mean, we all know the MPAA trash-talking is coming. I do seriously hope, however, that the MPAA is working on two fronts with respect to movies and the Internet.
Stopping illegal downloads and uploads of movies is certainly a fine goal, as the MPAA wants to make money. I understand that from a pragmatic, capitalist perspective.
The problem I have is that I have heard little from the MPAA about developing a content distribution mechanism through the Internet. Allowing people to pay for movies online (for a reasonable price) would certainly generate additional revenue. Let's face it, some nights you just want to stay in, and there's nothing decent at Blockbuster. Additionally, being able to pause the movie to take a break for some reason is worth money in sheer convenience.
In any event, the digital fingerprinting technology is a move to stem the file sharing, but unless the MPAA moves towards providing a service as well, it's doomed to failure.
As a side note, does this fingerprinting have uses in areas other than just stopping copyright infringing file transfers (e.g. security applications, firewalling, etc)? As a secondary question, would this mean (as I believe) that the MPAA would try to require ISP's to actively monitor every move I make online?
An additional and quite serious problem is that you can't win wars simply through bombing (with the exception of a particular kind of bomb - but it can be argued that no one wins in that scenario).
The problem I see is that any invasion to secure the ground would be ill-fated. North Korea has a 1.2 million man standing army with 6.4 million fit for service (The entire male population is conscripted at 17 years of age for training and service).
Now, I don't know about you, but invading a country which reveres its dead leader as a god, has a 1.2 million man army, and a population who truly (thanks to gov't propaganda) thinks the US is the great satan, sounds like a recipe for failure to me.
I clearly made my case for "what I have against GBPVR" - if you doubt my motives, that is another matter entirely. I admit, I spent an hour on trying to configure it and gave up, but it only took me 10 minutes or so to get SageTV to work, so that to me is worth the money, and that's my whole point.
When GBPVR works without over an hour of fiddling and tinkering, I'll consider using it. I'm not opposed to fiddling and tinkering, I do plenty of it, but I think that an application being marketed (if not formally, at least by posters here) should have some degree of "out of the box" functionality or at least a decent setup guide. The closest I can find are the GBPVR forums, which while useful, aren't a setup guide.
I'm not trashing GBPVR, just pointing out that it's not perfect and that its problems should be presented along with its benefits.
I have to tell you, from the experience I had and my brother had with GBPVR while trying to use it, I'm unimpressed. It records shows fine (at 1.6 GB/hr seemingly without the option to change encoding quality) and doesn't seem to allow for the possibility that someone might want to use it to watch live TV. The channel is locked at the last used channel.
Now, I know this is a piece of software in development, it's for Windows, and it's free, but let's not misrepresent the product here. It has potential, but isn't the BEST solution for Windows right now. The best options for Windows cost a one-time-fee of ~70 bucks, but are pretty reliable, usable pieces of software. My brother likes BeyondTV and I'm a fan of SageTV.
Now, maybe I didn't get in and hack the right textfile to set up GBPVR correctly, but that 70 bucks I paid gets me an easier setup and is a price I'm willing to pay.
Slashdot Mirror
The issue with defense spending is that the US has to prevent ANY assault while a potential adversary has to only spend enough to succeed at a SINGLE assault. Prevention of ALL attacks requires a huge budget, and is still probably impossible.
I'm fairly sure it's a word/noise which was popularized by The Simpsons. So, certainly it has US roots, but the Simpsons have legs, and I'm surprised it wouldn't have at least campy use outside the US.
One point I'd like to make about encrypting your email: you have to trust the person on the receiving end not to pass your (now) decrypted email on to another party. If you're picked up by the Feds after sending an email detailing an illegal act, I'd look to your "friend", the recipient, before I jumped to the conclusion that the government defeated your encryption.
Linux is my OS of choice - I know exactly what you mean, and I commiserate with you on this. The real point I'd make is that DRM is something added onto the Quicktime file. I'd oppose DRM completely for any purpose, but that doesn't mean that Quicktime is the issue here. The issue is the content provider encoding the file with DRM.
I agree it's unfortunate that Apple leverages Quicktime when trying to watch previews on apple.com, but there are many other sites with trailers which don't require using Apple's proprietary formats. Also, there are several alternative pieces of software which can be used to watch Quicktime videos on your operating system of choice. Microsoft does the same with windows media formats, and there are several alternative software packages that allow you to view most any video created for Windows Media Player. Also, it's not a monopoly because there are many other choices for content distributors. Almost anyone could watch an mpg file on almost any operating system using almost any video player software. As long as there are choices, it's not a monopoly.
Thank god for meta-moderation.
While I agree that certainly Comcast was aware of the HFC upstream network limitations, it's also entirely possible that their policy decision was partially based upon the desire to charge for hosting services. If you want to use your connection as a server, they'd like it if you paid for some "hosting package".
The real issue is definitional as well as monetary. How does Comcast define "server" and what are their service package goals? While their ToS can answer the first question, monetary motivations are harder to assess to outsiders.
While mostly true, maybe you've never seen the sorts of repairs that can be required after lightening strikes to an airplane. The points of entry and exit from a lightning strike look very much like burn marks. You're mostly safe in flight - assuming proper design measures have been taken to isolate circuity and fuel, but the airplane still requires a check by an engineer to determine what if any maintenance will be required. A hole in the fuselage can be fixed, but you shouldn't be under the illusion that "nothing" is damaged. Rather, the damage is typically minor.
I certainly hope the cockpit voice recorder can sustain those sorts of loads. The airframe itself is designed (by Federal Aviation Regulation requirements) to withstand only a 9g crash loading. I'd like the cockpit voice recorder to survive when all that's left of the plane are pieces the size of a small book. I have to say, 9g surprised me when I first learned that particular requirement - but your body would be quite unhappy with anything more, and the airframe would have to be prohibitively expensive and heavy to withstand more.
You can try to avoid the argument through your use of a straw man argument by comparing my argument to something which is similar to the RIAA's argument, but you're missing the larger point. What's the object of college? Why take this chemistry class? Answer? To learn the basics of whatever the class is teaching. The instructor has constructed the class in such a way so that the homework contributes to the educational process of the class, and students are only hurting themselves by not doing the work. At the same time, they're only helping themselves if they use this as a learning tool. Leechers are those students who do not contribute to the discussion and don't use the resources of the pool to understand the material but who instead copy the material and turn it in. That's the danger of using this system of collaboration via facebook which rewards simply SHOWING UP. There has to be more, or you're permitting cheating via leeching. Encouraged or simply tolerated, cheating is contrary to every academic code I've agreed to as as precondition of matriculation.
Students learning new collaboration techniques is an adaptive strategy to cope with the need to understand new information Instead of using the Internet to download or buy a solutions manual (they exist - there are enough poor grad students), the students here were studying and collaborating on problems.
Now, how's this different from a face-to-face study session? The most obvious way is that there are potentially "leechers" in this situation who benefit from the exchange without contributing anything of value in exchange. Now, we've probably all met that person in the "real" study session who takes without giving, but they're seldom invited to the next session. In this online example, there are potentially many more leeches than not.
I would like to point out, however, that the students will have a very hard time understanding the material if they never manage to get the right answers on their problem sets. In that respect, it's very much like real life. As an Engineer, I collaborate endlessly about many problems. I use face-to-face contact, telephone, email, and most prominently - instant messenger.
Technology is not the problem here, but rather the way in which it was used. A facebook study group makes perfect sense, but if the solutions to each problem are posted there, it simply becomes a cheating tool for those too lazy to do their own work. If the group were small - 3-5, and the method of interaction required participation from each member, this would probably not be an issue.
I wouldn't judge the way you've chosen to parent your child - it's entirely your business and you are the one who knows what sort of access should be allowed. It sounds like you are an involved parent, and that's a huge step beyond where many people are.
I was curious though, if you had shared all this information with her (e.g. told her that you reviewed her chat logs, explained the sort of control you asserted)? I ask as a future parent myself - just curious what your approach was and what sort of response it received.
MPEG, fine. AVI? Well, now you're starting to get into dangerous waters - a lot of the codecs that people on windows machines encode avi files with aren't either open or available to users on alternative operating systems.
I think it probably stems from a desire to control content, honestly, but if using shockwave which is available on other OS's is their method of content control, I can at least support the fact that it can allow me to watch videos without the need of codecs.
You're right, however. A simple video download would be far simpler, would allow zoom, and would allow us to watch it at our own convenience.
I agree - it would be much nicer to not have to install any video playing software in order to watch videos online... why *can't* they play in my text-based browser, afterall?
Seriously, though it's superior to AOL video or video from CNN that require you to have WMV support in your browser - and despite Flip4mac, that's still not an easy feat in OSX. I'm a huge supporter of platform-independent video, and flash player is at least a decent alternative towards that end.
Got your attention though, didn't it?
Again, yup, this was on Digg. So what? The sites may occasionally (ok, maybe relatively frequently) contain similar stories, but the sites are fundamentally different. Digg is content oriented (many many posts of stories) and Slashdot is comment oriented (many many comments on all manner of things tangentially related to the article).
I like Digg just as much as the next guy and read it frequently just to get a zeitgeist of interesting tech news, but for interesting discussion on the story, I come to Slashdot. So, maybe for now, can we just say that's enough "I saw it first on *site*"? I guarantee, even before it was on Digg, someone saw it first and can give the same response to Diggers.
It's nice that the hosting is donated... does this give any advantages to Oregon State students? Ultra-fast downloads over the U's internal network connections, for example?
Being closed to the public is probably going to happen with any "lab" at a university, but I'd bet that there are quite a few opportunities for student involvement with the lab if you know where to look.
Google.co.uk works fine. Stop yer whinin'.
yes, but it's still descriptive of a 2-factor authentication protocol. The card, be it printed or smart, is fulfilling the same purpose. The difference is that a smartcard is easier for customers to use.
You've essentially described a two-factor authentication system, but one which requires more from the user than inserting a USB keyfob or Smartcard. I suspect, however, that a smartcard would be much easier for customers to use and would be less prone to user error than entering numbers on a randomly arranged keypad from a lengthy authentication card.
In all the states I have lived in, refusing to take the breathalyzer test in the field necessitates an arrest on suspicion of DUI to be determined by a blood alcohol test (if you've requested it).
General refusal to submit to any sobriety test would require the arresting officer to make a sworn statement that you were drunk based upon the physical indicators he observed (slurred speech, slow reflexes, alcohol on breath, etc). Failure to complete a test is NOT evidence you are drunk. It doesn't help you out, though.
So sure, by all means, go down to the station and request the blood test. But refusing to take the breathalyzer DOES NOT by default imply failure of the test. *Evidence* is required by our judicial system, remember?
I mean, we all know the MPAA trash-talking is coming. I do seriously hope, however, that the MPAA is working on two fronts with respect to movies and the Internet.
Stopping illegal downloads and uploads of movies is certainly a fine goal, as the MPAA wants to make money. I understand that from a pragmatic, capitalist perspective.
The problem I have is that I have heard little from the MPAA about developing a content distribution mechanism through the Internet. Allowing people to pay for movies online (for a reasonable price) would certainly generate additional revenue. Let's face it, some nights you just want to stay in, and there's nothing decent at Blockbuster. Additionally, being able to pause the movie to take a break for some reason is worth money in sheer convenience.
In any event, the digital fingerprinting technology is a move to stem the file sharing, but unless the MPAA moves towards providing a service as well, it's doomed to failure.
As a side note, does this fingerprinting have uses in areas other than just stopping copyright infringing file transfers (e.g. security applications, firewalling, etc)? As a secondary question, would this mean (as I believe) that the MPAA would try to require ISP's to actively monitor every move I make online?
An additional and quite serious problem is that you can't win wars simply through bombing (with the exception of a particular kind of bomb - but it can be argued that no one wins in that scenario).
The problem I see is that any invasion to secure the ground would be ill-fated. North Korea has a 1.2 million man standing army with 6.4 million fit for service (The entire male population is conscripted at 17 years of age for training and service).
Now, I don't know about you, but invading a country which reveres its dead leader as a god, has a 1.2 million man army, and a population who truly (thanks to gov't propaganda) thinks the US is the great satan, sounds like a recipe for failure to me.
I clearly made my case for "what I have against GBPVR" - if you doubt my motives, that is another matter entirely. I admit, I spent an hour on trying to configure it and gave up, but it only took me 10 minutes or so to get SageTV to work, so that to me is worth the money, and that's my whole point.
When GBPVR works without over an hour of fiddling and tinkering, I'll consider using it. I'm not opposed to fiddling and tinkering, I do plenty of it, but I think that an application being marketed (if not formally, at least by posters here) should have some degree of "out of the box" functionality or at least a decent setup guide. The closest I can find are the GBPVR forums, which while useful, aren't a setup guide.
I'm not trashing GBPVR, just pointing out that it's not perfect and that its problems should be presented along with its benefits.
I have to tell you, from the experience I had and my brother had with GBPVR while trying to use it, I'm unimpressed. It records shows fine (at 1.6 GB/hr seemingly without the option to change encoding quality) and doesn't seem to allow for the possibility that someone might want to use it to watch live TV. The channel is locked at the last used channel.
Now, I know this is a piece of software in development, it's for Windows, and it's free, but let's not misrepresent the product here. It has potential, but isn't the BEST solution for Windows right now. The best options for Windows cost a one-time-fee of ~70 bucks, but are pretty reliable, usable pieces of software. My brother likes BeyondTV and I'm a fan of SageTV.
Now, maybe I didn't get in and hack the right textfile to set up GBPVR correctly, but that 70 bucks I paid gets me an easier setup and is a price I'm willing to pay.