If copyrights are extended retroactively to copyrights which have already expired, then copyrights should probably extend retroactively to copyrights which expired at the time they were used from the public domain.
So soon Disney can be busted for all their profits drawn from infringing on the then-copyrighted intellectual property of the Grimm fairy tales.
Of course it will never happen... in this world, Mickey mouse is protected for longer than anyone alive, both his property and his image.
Standing around in the shop trying to figure it out, an LCD TV has:
Reasonable reaction time
High brightness, high contrast
Reasonable colour accuracy
A very wide viewing angle
It of course also has a very low resolution and a higher tolerance to defects... So yeah, you'd think they'd be cheaper than flat panel computer monitors, but they're not and they're not quite the same thing.
You're not paying attention to the thread. What do you think would make people more happy? Ads or no ads? Nobody wants ads, people just recognize that they might be a necessary evil.
Google made a decision, they weighed ad revenue against the anticipated ill-will on the part of their customer base. They decided against including it in the results, for which Yahoo was a clear example that the cost was too high, so they decided that they would try putting them on the side of the results. The outcome was favourable, they attracted very little ill-will and still earned ad revenue.
If Google can find a way to make more money by being evil, they'll no doubt take it... it just happens to be that the people controlling it are sharp enough to spot what will attract an unmanagably bad amount of ill-will.
Oh no, you just have to find ways that the public doesn't perceive you to be evil enough that it hurts your market. You need to factor public perception into the cost of your decisions.
Google seems to do this well... Introducing ads is evil, introducing them outside of the results is also evil, but the negative perception is outweighed by the long term profit. Putting ads within the search results (as Yahoo did), resulted in such strong negative public perception that the reward from the advertising was outweighed by the damage.
The really old handsets also suffered limitations in materials, costs and size of the electronic (and electromechanical) components. The phones also had to be heavy so they wouldn't slide all over the place when you "dialed" them, and the handsets had to be heavy so that the "hook" would be depressed properly.
Why is it assumed that employers must pay employees for days they're not working and not on vacation?
I take it upon myself to put enough cash in the bank or space on the credit card, that if there were a personal emergency and I had to take leave, I could do so without my employer "forcing" me to show up to work by withholding my pay for that day.
I mean, really, if your bills are that tight, then it's not your employer forcing you to show, it's your own economic hardship which is forcing you to show.
Now... culturally, it's not the accepted opinion, but withholding pay for unworked days is not the same as forcing somebody to work.
They just tax the money from the SALE of that house.
Capital gains on the primary home is absurd since most of the gains on a primary home is due to local real-estate market inflation. Taxing the gains means that you can't sell your current home and buy a similar home, you must buy a smaller home or make up the difference lost in taxes.
There are a lot of side-effects from introducing taxes on the sale of houses. Right off the bat a few clear effects would be felt:
Second-time-buyers will be buying smaller homes
The market will be slowed during boom periods i.e. in a down market, jumping from a $200k house to a neighbour's $200k house costs nothing in capital gains taxes. Moving from a house purchased at $200k, sold at $500k into the neighbour's $500k home is taxed severely.
Growth in the housing market will slow over time as demand is curbed by capital gains
Private exchanges and private morgages will be halted as both parties would instantly require large sums of cash to cover tax penalties of selling their homes
First time buyers will have an advantage over previous owners... no capital gains penalties
Finally.... Banks will have to foreclose more aggressively to offset the tax penalties of selling the foreclosed property. (although the rumour is that the banks only sell for the mortgage outstanding... which always seemed criminal to me)
All that money from a capital gains on a primary home will come directly from the housing market.
For instance, instead of saving an xored version of the password (I'm assuming you need the cleartext of the password to run through your decryption algorithm), you can save a hash of the password. Then when the user enters their password, you compare hashes for correctness, and if there's a match, you use the cleartext they just entered.
It's generally bad to do it this way at all. The reason being that the problem-space of reasonable passwords is quite small and the problem can be tackled off-line and, if necessary, distributed over multiple computers easily. It's not astronomically difficult to do a dictionary attack or full-random attack against a password space.
Yes, you can pick a computationally intensive algorithm to encrypt a password but... 1. it must be fast enough not to be annoying yet, 2. must be intense enough to be difficult to crack using multiple faster computers in parallel and 3. must not be significantly affected by improvements in computing technology... in other words, impossible or impractical.
What you really want is a good long random encryption key which is in your notebook computer or a USB key. The random key would be decrypted by your password. The point being now that if you lose your Jumpdrive, they've got an astronomically small chance of guessing your key, but if they get your whole notebook, then, as I mentioned above, they just need to guess your password.
BTW, I think way back in the past there was a Macintosh encryption program which made this same mistake (storing the plaintext password on the encrypted media), IIRC, it used and advertised "3-DES encryption!"... and it was quite technically true.
I haven't read the whole thread, but a nice thing about a web-of-trust system using public keys is that you could dump the organization who trusts Aunt Millie to send valid email (assuming the virus/worm was able to send signed emails.. otherwise, they probably shouldn't even make it past the mail relay)
If that organization is MSN, AOL or Google, you might think that those organizations would have incentive to not get themselves untrusted. Ditto for the ISPs.
So now they have a need to trust their users... no more instant-disposable anonymous accounts, no more open mail relays, no more suspicious email.
Google, Hotmail or Yahoo could kickstart public key encryption for antispam overnight by implementing a simlified "secure email" interface... e.g. "Yahoo trusts this email originated from Yahoo... " eventually "Yahoo trusted this email came from Google", and finally "You trust this email because it is signed by somebody your friend Bob trusts."
Uh-oh... Ultra-special High Definition, "Who really shot first" edition: The unarmed Han reflects Greedo's shots back at him with his walkie-talkie in bulletime.
Situations aren't stressful when you're completely out of control or your task and responsability is clearly defined. For something to be really stressful, you have to be missing part of the picture.
When you insert a bunch of unknowns, like oh... The main database server is unreachable, the CEO is unreachable, and you can't even start to work on the problem until the guys on-site respond... It's 12:00pm, you're low on sleep, and you have to meet with the customer at 7:00am... which they're on the other side of the country and not responding! Nothing to do but sleep... yep. Sleep well.
...or maybe someone cut the fiber to this block, we gotta move from one colo to the next in 17 hours, and the police have taped off the area as a murder scene... it could open up in the next three minutes or next 30 hours, it's anyone's guess.... it's a shame the I.T. was out of your hands and you can't reach the customer database to notify everyone or provide a status update before they call.
Here's one... your car breaks down on a highway with no shoulders in the middle of the night, your electrical system fails, you've got no flares, and your handicapped mother is in the car... I hope nobody's doing 130MPH when you step out onto the ashphalt.
At least the new CGI Jabba doesn't look like he's about to join forces with Pikachu.
As for the Jabba scene, Jabba was pasted in... both in the old one and the new one. The scene was shot with a human actor, they kept the footage before Jabba was made into a giant slug, and then superimposed CGI years later when it became technically possible. The original edit is horribly animated, although in this new one, like you say, the shininess and dust does seem like an oversight... although he is a good slimy slug-creature.
The CGI slug thing was certainly an afterthought, else Han wouldn't have walked full circle around the actor playing Jabba... that causes a lot of problems for the edit.
Lucas apparently wanted really badly to show Jabba moving in the original edit, but it would have been too costly to devise a huge slug-puppet for such a brief scene.
Slashdot Mirror
If copyrights are extended retroactively to copyrights which have already expired, then copyrights should probably extend retroactively to copyrights which expired at the time they were used from the public domain.
So soon Disney can be busted for all their profits drawn from infringing on the then-copyrighted intellectual property of the Grimm fairy tales.
Of course it will never happen... in this world, Mickey mouse is protected for longer than anyone alive, both his property and his image.
In many places, the real-estate is more valuable than the price difference between a 40" plasma and a 40" tube.
Standing around in the shop trying to figure it out, an LCD TV has:
It of course also has a very low resolution and a higher tolerance to defects... So yeah, you'd think they'd be cheaper than flat panel computer monitors, but they're not and they're not quite the same thing.
They're used for professional photography where Helicopters are impractical or unnecessary: http://www.floatograph.com/
They're so cool, but keep them out of the wind :-)
When do you suppose advertisers will start charging service providers for sending them content?
You're not paying attention to the thread. What do you think would make people more happy? Ads or no ads? Nobody wants ads, people just recognize that they might be a necessary evil.
Google made a decision, they weighed ad revenue against the anticipated ill-will on the part of their customer base. They decided against including it in the results, for which Yahoo was a clear example that the cost was too high, so they decided that they would try putting them on the side of the results. The outcome was favourable, they attracted very little ill-will and still earned ad revenue.
If Google can find a way to make more money by being evil, they'll no doubt take it... it just happens to be that the people controlling it are sharp enough to spot what will attract an unmanagably bad amount of ill-will.
Oh no, you just have to find ways that the public doesn't perceive you to be evil enough that it hurts your market. You need to factor public perception into the cost of your decisions.
Google seems to do this well... Introducing ads is evil, introducing them outside of the results is also evil, but the negative perception is outweighed by the long term profit. Putting ads within the search results (as Yahoo did), resulted in such strong negative public perception that the reward from the advertising was outweighed by the damage.
We could hire a zombie network to attack the zombie DNS servers!
Just put your list filters ahead of your spam filters.
The really old handsets also suffered limitations in materials, costs and size of the electronic (and electromechanical) components. The phones also had to be heavy so they wouldn't slide all over the place when you "dialed" them, and the handsets had to be heavy so that the "hook" would be depressed properly.
Although the big heavy handsets are nice :-)
Some of that bragging might be almost 10 years old. Debian has had this problem solved for a very long time.
Why is it assumed that employers must pay employees for days they're not working and not on vacation?
I take it upon myself to put enough cash in the bank or space on the credit card, that if there were a personal emergency and I had to take leave, I could do so without my employer "forcing" me to show up to work by withholding my pay for that day.
I mean, really, if your bills are that tight, then it's not your employer forcing you to show, it's your own economic hardship which is forcing you to show.
Now... culturally, it's not the accepted opinion, but withholding pay for unworked days is not the same as forcing somebody to work.
They just tax the money from the SALE of that house.
Capital gains on the primary home is absurd since most of the gains on a primary home is due to local real-estate market inflation. Taxing the gains means that you can't sell your current home and buy a similar home, you must buy a smaller home or make up the difference lost in taxes.
There are a lot of side-effects from introducing taxes on the sale of houses. Right off the bat a few clear effects would be felt:
All that money from a capital gains on a primary home will come directly from the housing market.
In a global medium, "overseas" is a silly thing to say.
I don't think he can hear you.
Post: Movie's tagline: If you're bored with the rear, try it in the ear.
Reply: That's oral
For instance, instead of saving an xored version of the password (I'm assuming you need the cleartext of the password to run through your decryption algorithm), you can save a hash of the password. Then when the user enters their password, you compare hashes for correctness, and if there's a match, you use the cleartext they just entered.
It's generally bad to do it this way at all. The reason being that the problem-space of reasonable passwords is quite small and the problem can be tackled off-line and, if necessary, distributed over multiple computers easily. It's not astronomically difficult to do a dictionary attack or full-random attack against a password space.
Yes, you can pick a computationally intensive algorithm to encrypt a password but... 1. it must be fast enough not to be annoying yet, 2. must be intense enough to be difficult to crack using multiple faster computers in parallel and 3. must not be significantly affected by improvements in computing technology... in other words, impossible or impractical.
What you really want is a good long random encryption key which is in your notebook computer or a USB key. The random key would be decrypted by your password. The point being now that if you lose your Jumpdrive, they've got an astronomically small chance of guessing your key, but if they get your whole notebook, then, as I mentioned above, they just need to guess your password.
BTW, I think way back in the past there was a Macintosh encryption program which made this same mistake (storing the plaintext password on the encrypted media), IIRC, it used and advertised "3-DES encryption!"... and it was quite technically true.
There was a Canadian case where some teenagers were convicted of manslaughter for stealing a stop sign.
Reasonable punishment for causing somebody's death on the roads.
No, "$$$ through security."
I haven't read the whole thread, but a nice thing about a web-of-trust system using public keys is that you could dump the organization who trusts Aunt Millie to send valid email (assuming the virus/worm was able to send signed emails.. otherwise, they probably shouldn't even make it past the mail relay)
If that organization is MSN, AOL or Google, you might think that those organizations would have incentive to not get themselves untrusted. Ditto for the ISPs.
So now they have a need to trust their users... no more instant-disposable anonymous accounts, no more open mail relays, no more suspicious email.
Google, Hotmail or Yahoo could kickstart public key encryption for antispam overnight by implementing a simlified "secure email" interface... e.g. "Yahoo trusts this email originated from Yahoo... " eventually "Yahoo trusted this email came from Google", and finally "You trust this email because it is signed by somebody your friend Bob trusts."
Klingon days?
When did IBM start using Redhat on the Power achitecture? It's been SuSE for a long time now hasn't it?
IMNSHO, it's BS... as I'm sure you were implying :-)
You've always been able to copy stuff to your heart's content... what you're not allowed to do is copy and distribute... among other things.
Uh-oh... Ultra-special High Definition, "Who really shot first" edition: The unarmed Han reflects Greedo's shots back at him with his walkie-talkie in bulletime.
Situations aren't stressful when you're completely out of control or your task and responsability is clearly defined. For something to be really stressful, you have to be missing part of the picture.
When you insert a bunch of unknowns, like oh... The main database server is unreachable, the CEO is unreachable, and you can't even start to work on the problem until the guys on-site respond... It's 12:00pm, you're low on sleep, and you have to meet with the customer at 7:00am... which they're on the other side of the country and not responding! Nothing to do but sleep... yep. Sleep well.
...or maybe someone cut the fiber to this block, we gotta move from one colo to the next in 17 hours, and the police have taped off the area as a murder scene... it could open up in the next three minutes or next 30 hours, it's anyone's guess.... it's a shame the I.T. was out of your hands and you can't reach the customer database to notify everyone or provide a status update before they call.
Here's one... your car breaks down on a highway with no shoulders in the middle of the night, your electrical system fails, you've got no flares, and your handicapped mother is in the car... I hope nobody's doing 130MPH when you step out onto the ashphalt.
At least the new CGI Jabba doesn't look like he's about to join forces with Pikachu.
As for the Jabba scene, Jabba was pasted in... both in the old one and the new one. The scene was shot with a human actor, they kept the footage before Jabba was made into a giant slug, and then superimposed CGI years later when it became technically possible. The original edit is horribly animated, although in this new one, like you say, the shininess and dust does seem like an oversight... although he is a good slimy slug-creature.
The CGI slug thing was certainly an afterthought, else Han wouldn't have walked full circle around the actor playing Jabba... that causes a lot of problems for the edit.
Lucas apparently wanted really badly to show Jabba moving in the original edit, but it would have been too costly to devise a huge slug-puppet for such a brief scene.