I've been in web development for 20 years. I've dealt with DRM implemented with Active X (limiting sites to Internet Explorer only), Java, Flash, Silverlight, and others. Mostly the effect of this is that users who chose anything but Windows couldn't access the media. For example, for years Linux users couldn't access Netflix - until HTML5 IME came along. (IME is the "drm" that this article complains about). Of course the blessed platforms are now often Apple iOS and Android, rather than Windows.
Columbia and MGM aren't about to release their movies as unprotected mpeg4 files, no matter how much we would like them to do that. The actual effect of IME (aka html5 drm) has been to open up content, such as Netflix, to more people. Hollywood isn't going DRM-free. Our actual options are a) Silverlight DRM or other platform-locked, non-standard DRM, or b) platform neutral, standardized streaming such as we have with HTML5 IME. Given the realistic choices, I prefer (b). I'd prefer Netflix be platform-independent than not.
Yeah Verizon does set a cookie-like identifier which goes to AOL-owned sites and possibly some other Verizon-affiliated sites. There is an opt-in component and an opt-out component. Verizon customers may want to opt out. More info:
You said it, but your wording was such that it might be unclear. Google doesn't sell information about users. Google sells ads. The user data their golden egg they keep top secret, and use to sell ads.
First, F you for making so that in order to tell the truth, I end up defending *Verizon*. Please be careful about stating untruths about assholes; I don't like posting stuff that makes Verizon look less bad.
Second, the article you linked to, based on a post the EFF has retracted, does NOT mention browser history.
Third, did I mention RERRACTED.
According to the article you linked to, on one particular Verizon phone you can OPT IN to an app that lets them see which APPS you have installed. Nothing to do with browser history whatsoever, and it's opt-in.
> Rep Lamarr is hardly going to have a bill called "Rep > Lamarr is a cunt bill". Rep Lamarr is a flat-out denialist >... > Rep Lamarr is deeply anti science
It seems you know all about this "Representative Lamarr" guy. Well except anything, like his name, for example. Congressman Smith's first name is Lamar; he's not Lamarr, and certainly not "Representative Lamarr".
> Has something like this ever happened before with 2 of the largest retailer companies?
It's ALWAYS happening. Walmart's history specifically includes conquering K-Mart (they were once equals), dueling with Target, and early in Walmart's history they competed directly with the largest retailer at the time - Woolworth's / Woolco. Woolworth and Sear's both built the tallest building in the world at different times, when each was the leading retailer.
The grocery industry is a constant cage match between a few major players. Kroger is the third-largest retailer in the world; they operate about 20 supermarket chain brands. Kroger's main competitor is Albertsons, which has 2,400 stores (about half as many as Walmart).
> a stepping stone to (a) Allow lay persons (or even entire industries with paid "scientists") to challenge the results
That certainly sounds good. Everyone can see the data discuss the analysis, see if it holds up to scrutiny, and often see other, completely unexpected information revealed in the data. Quite often, when I graph data looking for a relationship between X and Y, I'm surprised to find a clear relationship between X and Q, new information I didn't even know to look for.
> and (b) delay the process of making new regulations by requiring the agency to jump through hoops
Regulation - (verb) The process of a few people forcing millions of others to do as the few demand, ultimately enforced by threat of violence.
I, for one, am glad that Trump can't just start announcing new laws whenever he feels like it. Unlike North Korea, making law in United States *is* a slow process, with hoops to jump through. I'm very glad for that. It *should* be difficult for a few guys in Washington to tell you and I what we must do and must do. Because ultimately if you don't do as they say, eventually they'll send an armed squad to get you and make you comply, they *should* have to justify new laws, they *should* have to jump through some hoops (and regulations are laws).
Uhm, no. The annotations are by Lexis Nexis. The laws are written by legislative staffers, the Uniform Law Commission of the National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws (NCCUSL) and the American Law Institute, and other authors.
> A VPN having a privacy policy of not handing your traffic over will get in a lot more trouble if they sell that data
I'm not so sure. Has ANY VPN provider EVER been busted for that, or anything like it? Can and do the owners of the VPN services hide their identity? It seems to me the big ISPs are very slightly more accountable - they are regulated and we all know exactly who they are.
> I think the problem that chairman Wheeler was trying to solve was states that attempted to block all provision of broadband service under the universal service rules.
That's an interesting guess, I suppose, but no. For example here is information about California's implementation: http://www.cpuc.ca.gov/CASF/
Obviously you're capable of Googling the other 13 states yourself, but I think you'll find probably all of them, certainly most of them, have broadband programs - programs that make sense for their state. If you think for just a few moments about even one obvious difference between states, population density, I think you'll recognize that the needs in Montana and Wyoming are different than New Jersey and Maryland.
You keep citing the 1934 law. It's been changed a few times in the last 80 years. Most recently in 1996. Here's a key part of the text of the statute currently governing these funds for the last twenty years:
--
telecommunications services shall contribute, on an equitable and nondiscriminatory basis, in a manner determined by the State to the preservation and advancement of universal service in that State. --
That's the law and has been for 20 years - states direct the program based on their particular needs. New Jersey wants cheap high speed service in the hood, Montana wants usable service in the boonies.
Chairman Wheeler didn't really give a shit what the law said, he was pretty open about that. It's pretty silly to be citing what the law was in the 1930s as if it controls how funds are authorized to be spent today, though. Things have changed since 1934 and Wheeler's attempt to ignore the Congressional appropriation was and is unlawful.
> It wasn't a resource hog - its just that the majority of people programming for Flash sucked as developers.
In some Flash versions, at least, the simplest "Hello world" animations hogged CPU by default. A smart developer could arrange for it to idle between frames so it wouldn't toast the CPU.
Flash STARTED as a browser-neutral Javascript environment, which featured vector graphics. Later, as consumer bandwidth became sufficient to stream video, people started using Flash to embed video.
Flash was a programming runtime in the days of dial-up and isdn, before video on the web was a thing.
You know a consultant is worth every dime when they're going to "explore the synergies". That phrase makes me wonder - did they hire *actual* consultants or parodies?
For an sufficiently narrowly defined domain, so am I. Then again, so is Lennart Poettering.
Eric S. Raymond is a far more accomplished developer than I am. It is good for me to remember there are many, many far more accomplished, and many who are just plain more knowledgeable all around.
I happen to be, or once was, the best in the world at protecting paid web sites from unauthorized access. I was a longtime member of many cracker forums, and got a certain amount of respect because I had been around for many years and knew the ins and outs of the various security systems. Little did they know I was a spy, that the most senior member of their community was there to surveil them and feed them misinformation. So I was the best at my particular speciality, but plenty of people are better than me in much larger, more general domains. Being the best at one very specific thing doesn't make me good, it makes not versatile.
I've discussed the Linux RAID code with Neil Brown, who wrote most of it. That conversation made me keenly aware that my grasp of Linux storage it is rather pitiful.
I've discussed proposals for new internet protocols with Vint Cerf, known as "the father of the internet". I was reminded I'm the big fish only in a very, very small pond.
A few weeks ago someone at work asked for "a Perl guru". Just that morning I had participated in the Slashdot discussion with Larry Wall - a fresh reminder of who is a Perl guru and who isn't.
My co-worker read something about Linux on Stackoverflow, and he knew as much as other people posting to that question knew - he felt like an expert.
A co-worker once used "telnet 25" to do smtp. Nobody else he knows does that, so he's an expert.
My own experience is that the more I learn, the more I am exposed to actual experts, the more I discover that there are many people much more knowledgeable than I. If I think I'm really good, that actually just means I *might* be better, in some ways, than the people I talk to - thinking I'm good just means I'm failing to learn from people who are better.
I strongly suspect those who are humble are the people who read the work of Knuth, T'so, Engelschall, etc - the really programmers know they aren't the best.
The laws are written down. You can read them, rather than making something up out of thin air and deciding to believe it. I've copy-pastes it for you below. You'll notice flying is NOT illegal - flying over someone's house is very much NOT covered by the "peeping tom" section because that would make air travel nearly impossible.
As I recall 46 or 47 states use this wording: (11)âfor a lewd or unlawful purpose: (A)âenters on the property of another and looks into a dwelling on the property through any window or other opening in the dwelling; (B)âwhile on the premises of a hotel or comparable establishment, looks into a guest room not the person's own through a window or other opening in the room; âor (C)âwhile on the premises of a public place, looks into an area such as a restroom or shower stall or changing or dressing room that is designed to provide privacy to a person using the area.
For a civil tort (suing someone for money) it pretty much comes down to a "reasonable expectation of privacy". Generally, there is no "reasonable expectation of privacy" outdoors. (With rare exceptions). Even if there is a fence, you know planes fly overhead, small planes and helicopters fly low. Therefore you can't reasonably expect that a small plane won't fly over and get an overhead view of your yard. (Quite to the chagrin of many a marijuana grower).
Peeping Tom would be looking in someone's windows.
Driving down the street, or sitting at a bus stop, and seeing people walk by in public isn't illegal. There's no invasion of privacy because there is no privacy out in public. Flying 200 feet overhead and seeing people walking down the sidewalk isn't illegal any more than driving down the street and seeing people. Sitting behind a bush also is not illegal in the United States. If you want privacy, go inside.
If you're extra paranoid, you might think about a "drone" hovering outside your window. *That* would be illegal, and very loud. I have a small "drone" (toy quadcopter) and I can easily hear it from 200-300 yards away.
Another area with registration ensures that the information about a specific gun is available to law enforcement following proper procedures, but the database can never be leaked in masse, causing the issues that would entail.
Each manufacturer (seperately) has a list of which distributor they sold it to. Each distributor has a list of which wholesaler they sold it to. Each wholesaler has a list of which retailer they sold it to. Each retailer has a list of the end-purchaser they sold it to.
A law enforcement officer following procedure who finds a gun (or toy RC helicopter?) can get the owner's name with five phone calls. So if you want to know about a specific gun (or suspicious toy?), it takes 10-15 minutes to get the information. You can't get a list of *everybody* who bought guns, though (not without going to each individual retailer).
I'll never quite understand why people make stuff up out of thin air, then proceed to "correct" those who actually have the facts. Here's the complaint initiating the suit:
The proposed runway has a circumference of 6 miles. Meaning it turns by 60 degrees per mile.
A 747 lands at about 160 MPH and has a minimum runway length of 9,743 feet (1.85 miles). If a 747 touched down headed north into the wind, it would be headed southeast as it completed the landing, and the headwind at touchdown would become a 90 degree crosswind while the plane was travelling about 80 MPH.
Approaching the runway at 160 MPH while turning sharply, the apparent wind direction would change 90 degrees every 30 seconds.
Titleist makes world-class balls. Costco is suing. So by his logic Titleist can (and does), Costco can't do the R&D, so they sue to rip of. Titleist's R&D. That may be right.
> A computer doesn't give a shit if the runway is straight or curved, because it can handle a little more left (or whatever) while it's managing dozens of other things.
It's not "a little more left", it's nearly a 1G turn at the proposed dimensions - about the maximum turn rate an airliner will ever do outside of test flights.
Just as important, probably, it would mean rolling the broad side of the wings into a cross wind. This is hard to explain in words, but imagine the wind is coming from the left. With a normal, straight runway, the wings are level, so the plane looks like this: ----o---- The wind doesn't hit the wings much. But if to make a sharp turn, we need to bank the wings at 45 degrees or so:
\
\
o
\
\
You can see a wind from the left (or right) will exert a MUCH stronger force on the plane, blowing it off course. Software can't magically fix that. It may or may not manage to crash softer than a human pilot would manage.
Slashdot Mirror
I've been in web development for 20 years. I've dealt with DRM implemented with Active X (limiting sites to Internet Explorer only), Java, Flash, Silverlight, and others. Mostly the effect of this is that users who chose anything but Windows couldn't access the media. For example, for years Linux users couldn't access Netflix - until HTML5 IME came along. (IME is the "drm" that this article complains about). Of course the blessed platforms are now often Apple iOS and Android, rather than Windows.
Columbia and MGM aren't about to release their movies as unprotected mpeg4 files, no matter how much we would like them to do that. The actual effect of IME (aka html5 drm) has been to open up content, such as Netflix, to more people. Hollywood isn't going DRM-free. Our actual options are a) Silverlight DRM or other platform-locked, non-standard DRM, or b) platform neutral, standardized streaming such as we have with HTML5 IME. Given the realistic choices, I prefer (b). I'd prefer Netflix be platform-independent than not.
Yeah Verizon does set a cookie-like identifier which goes to AOL-owned sites and possibly some other Verizon-affiliated sites. There is an opt-in component and an opt-out component. Verizon customers may want to opt out. More info:
https://www.verizonwireless.co...
https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/...
(Note this link is from late 2014 and may be outdated.)
You said it, but your wording was such that it might be unclear. Google doesn't sell information about users. Google sells ads. The user data their golden egg they keep top secret, and use to sell ads.
First, F you for making so that in order to tell the truth, I end up defending *Verizon*. Please be careful about stating untruths about assholes; I don't like posting stuff that makes Verizon look less bad.
Second, the article you linked to, based on a post the EFF has retracted, does NOT mention browser history.
Third, did I mention RERRACTED.
According to the article you linked to, on one particular Verizon phone you can OPT IN to an app that lets them see which APPS you have installed. Nothing to do with browser history whatsoever, and it's opt-in.
> Rep Lamarr is hardly going to have a bill called "Rep ...
> Lamarr is a cunt bill". Rep Lamarr is a flat-out denialist
>
> Rep Lamarr is deeply anti science
It seems you know all about this "Representative Lamarr" guy. Well except anything, like his name, for example. Congressman Smith's first name is Lamar; he's not Lamarr, and certainly not "Representative Lamarr".
> Has something like this ever happened before with 2 of the largest retailer companies?
It's ALWAYS happening. Walmart's history specifically includes conquering K-Mart (they were once equals), dueling with Target, and early in Walmart's history they competed directly with the largest retailer at the time - Woolworth's / Woolco. Woolworth and Sear's both built the tallest building in the world at different times, when each was the leading retailer.
The grocery industry is a constant cage match between a few major players. Kroger is the third-largest retailer in the world; they operate about 20 supermarket chain brands. Kroger's main competitor is Albertsons, which has 2,400 stores (about half as many as Walmart).
> a stepping stone to (a) Allow lay persons (or even entire industries with paid "scientists") to challenge the results
That certainly sounds good. Everyone can see the data discuss the analysis, see if it holds up to scrutiny, and often see other, completely unexpected information revealed in the data. Quite often, when I graph data looking for a relationship between X and Y, I'm surprised to find a clear relationship between X and Q, new information I didn't even know to look for.
> and (b) delay the process of making new regulations by requiring the agency to jump through hoops
Regulation - (verb) The process of a few people forcing millions of others to do as the few demand, ultimately enforced by threat of violence.
I, for one, am glad that Trump can't just start announcing new laws whenever he feels like it. Unlike North Korea, making law in United States *is* a slow process, with hoops to jump through. I'm very glad for that. It *should* be difficult for a few guys in Washington to tell you and I what we must do and must do. Because ultimately if you don't do as they say, eventually they'll send an armed squad to get you and make you comply, they *should* have to justify new laws, they *should* have to jump through some hoops (and regulations are laws).
Uhm, no. The annotations are by Lexis Nexis. The laws are written by legislative staffers, the Uniform Law Commission of the National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws (NCCUSL) and the American Law Institute, and other authors.
Yeah, Lexis Nexis is a major "go to" source.
> A VPN having a privacy policy of not handing your traffic over will get in a lot more trouble if they sell that data
I'm not so sure. Has ANY VPN provider EVER been busted for that, or anything like it? Can and do the owners of the VPN services hide their identity? It seems to me the big ISPs are very slightly more accountable - they are regulated and we all know exactly who they are.
> I think the problem that chairman Wheeler was trying to solve was states that attempted to block all provision of broadband service under the universal service rules.
That's an interesting guess, I suppose, but no. For example here is information about California's implementation:
http://www.cpuc.ca.gov/CASF/
Obviously you're capable of Googling the other 13 states yourself, but I think you'll find probably all of them, certainly most of them, have broadband programs - programs that make sense for their state. If you think for just a few moments about even one obvious difference between states, population density, I think you'll recognize that the needs in Montana and Wyoming are different than New Jersey and Maryland.
You keep citing the 1934 law. It's been changed a few times in the last 80 years. Most recently in 1996. Here's a key part of the text of the statute currently governing these funds for the last twenty years:
--
telecommunications services shall contribute, on an equitable and nondiscriminatory basis, in a manner determined by the State to the preservation and advancement of universal service in that State.
--
That's the law and has been for 20 years - states direct the program based on their particular needs. New Jersey wants cheap high speed service in the hood, Montana wants usable service in the boonies.
Chairman Wheeler didn't really give a shit what the law said, he was pretty open about that. It's pretty silly to be citing what the law was in the 1930s as if it controls how funds are authorized to be spent today, though. Things have changed since 1934 and Wheeler's attempt to ignore the Congressional appropriation was and is unlawful.
Wholesalers, and anyone else the business of selling guns, must record every transaction and run a background check. That's federal law.
> It wasn't a resource hog - its just that the majority of people programming for Flash sucked as developers.
In some Flash versions, at least, the simplest "Hello world" animations hogged CPU by default. A smart developer could arrange for it to idle between frames so it wouldn't toast the CPU.
Flash STARTED as a browser-neutral Javascript environment, which featured vector graphics. Later, as consumer bandwidth became sufficient to stream video, people started using Flash to embed video.
Flash was a programming runtime in the days of dial-up and isdn, before video on the web was a thing.
You know a consultant is worth every dime when they're going to "explore the synergies". That phrase makes me wonder - did they hire *actual* consultants or parodies?
> I am the best developer for my domain.
For an sufficiently narrowly defined domain, so am I. Then again, so is Lennart Poettering.
Eric S. Raymond is a far more accomplished developer than I am. It is good for me to remember there are many, many far more accomplished, and many who are just plain more knowledgeable all around.
I happen to be, or once was, the best in the world at protecting paid web sites from unauthorized access. I was a longtime member of many cracker forums, and got a certain amount of respect because I had been around for many years and knew the ins and outs of the various security systems. Little did they know I was a spy, that the most senior member of their community was there to surveil them and feed them misinformation. So I was the best at my particular speciality, but plenty of people are better than me in much larger, more general domains. Being the best at one very specific thing doesn't make me good, it makes not versatile.
I've discussed the Linux RAID code with Neil Brown, who wrote most of it. That conversation made me keenly aware that my grasp of Linux storage it is rather pitiful.
I've discussed proposals for new internet protocols with Vint Cerf, known as "the father of the internet". I was reminded I'm the big fish only in a very, very small pond.
A few weeks ago someone at work asked for "a Perl guru". Just that morning I had participated in the Slashdot discussion with Larry Wall - a fresh reminder of who is a Perl guru and who isn't.
My co-worker read something about Linux on Stackoverflow, and he knew as much as other people posting to that question knew - he felt like an expert.
A co-worker once used "telnet 25" to do smtp. Nobody else he knows does that, so he's an expert.
My own experience is that the more I learn, the more I am exposed to actual experts, the more I discover that there are many people much more knowledgeable than I. If I think I'm really good, that actually just means I *might* be better, in some ways, than the people I talk to - thinking I'm good just means I'm failing to learn from people who are better.
I strongly suspect those who are humble are the people who read the work of Knuth, T'so, Engelschall, etc - the really programmers know they aren't the best.
The laws are written down. You can read them, rather than making something up out of thin air and deciding to believe it. I've copy-pastes it for you below. You'll notice flying is NOT illegal - flying over someone's house is very much NOT covered by the "peeping tom" section because that would make air travel nearly impossible.
As I recall 46 or 47 states use this wording:
(11)âfor a lewd or unlawful purpose:
(A)âenters on the property of another and looks into a dwelling on the property through any window or other opening in the dwelling;
(B)âwhile on the premises of a hotel or comparable establishment, looks into a guest room not the person's own through a window or other opening in the room; âor
(C)âwhile on the premises of a public place, looks into an area such as a restroom or shower stall or changing or dressing room that is designed to provide privacy to a person using the area.
For a civil tort (suing someone for money) it pretty much comes down to a "reasonable expectation of privacy". Generally, there is no "reasonable expectation of privacy" outdoors. (With rare exceptions). Even if there is a fence, you know planes fly overhead, small planes and helicopters fly low. Therefore you can't reasonably expect that a small plane won't fly over and get an overhead view of your yard. (Quite to the chagrin of many a marijuana grower).
Peeping Tom would be looking in someone's windows.
Driving down the street, or sitting at a bus stop, and seeing people walk by in public isn't illegal. There's no invasion of privacy because there is no privacy out in public. Flying 200 feet overhead and seeing people walking down the sidewalk isn't illegal any more than driving down the street and seeing people. Sitting behind a bush also is not illegal in the United States. If you want privacy, go inside.
If you're extra paranoid, you might think about a "drone" hovering outside your window. *That* would be illegal, and very loud. I have a small "drone" (toy quadcopter) and I can easily hear it from 200-300 yards away.
Another area with registration ensures that the information about a specific gun is available to law enforcement following proper procedures, but the database can never be leaked in masse, causing the issues that would entail.
Each manufacturer (seperately) has a list of which distributor they sold it to. Each distributor has a list of which wholesaler they sold it to. Each wholesaler has a list of which retailer they sold it to. Each retailer has a list of the end-purchaser they sold it to.
A law enforcement officer following procedure who finds a gun (or toy RC helicopter?) can get the owner's name with five phone calls. So if you want to know about a specific gun (or suspicious toy?), it takes 10-15 minutes to get the information. You can't get a list of *everybody* who bought guns, though (not without going to each individual retailer).
I'll never quite understand why people make stuff up out of thin air, then proceed to "correct" those who actually have the facts. Here's the complaint initiating the suit:
http://golf-patents.com/wp-con...
You may notice right on the top of the page:
COSTCO WHOLESALE
CORPORATION, a Washington
corporation,
Plaintiff,
v.
ACUSHNET HOLDINGS CORP., a
Delaware corporation,
Defendant.
"Plaintiff" means "the person who is suing". Defendant means "the person who is getting sued".
The proposed runway has a circumference of 6 miles. Meaning it turns by 60 degrees per mile.
A 747 lands at about 160 MPH and has a minimum runway length of 9,743 feet (1.85 miles). If a 747 touched down headed north into the wind, it would be headed southeast as it completed the landing, and the headwind at touchdown would become a 90 degree crosswind while the plane was travelling about 80 MPH.
Approaching the runway at 160 MPH while turning sharply, the apparent wind direction would change 90 degrees every 30 seconds.
Opportunist may be right. He said:
Those who can, do.
Those who can't, sue.
Titleist makes world-class balls. Costco is suing. So by his logic Titleist can (and does), Costco can't do the R&D, so they sue to rip of. Titleist's R&D. That may be right.
> A computer doesn't give a shit if the runway is straight or curved, because it can handle a little more left (or whatever) while it's managing dozens of other things.
It's not "a little more left", it's nearly a 1G turn at the proposed dimensions - about the maximum turn rate an airliner will ever do outside of test flights.
Just as important, probably, it would mean rolling the broad side of the wings into a cross wind. This is hard to explain in words, but imagine the wind is coming from the left. With a normal, straight runway, the wings are level, so the plane looks like this:
----o----
The wind doesn't hit the wings much. But if to make a sharp turn, we need to bank the wings at 45 degrees or so:
\
\
o
\
\
You can see a wind from the left (or right) will exert a MUCH stronger force on the plane, blowing it off course. Software can't magically fix that. It may or may not manage to crash softer than a human pilot would manage.