The average enterprise class iPhone application isn't trusted lives with. Also, not inside an industry where an accident means deaths of hundreds of people at once. Nobody brings the average car accident in the news, for example when somebody kills themselves at the highway. But when a plane crashes, it comes in the news, so politicians and representatives of the airlines promise they do something, and tighten regulations. Meanwhile, car security is still shit as hell.
I guess its all formally proven. Is the average business iphone application formally proven?
Can you please stop with this plebs speak? This is a site for nerds, not for non-technical people. Say "hash" when you mean "hash". I mean is researching actual technical info so hard? For everyone not wanting to click links: its comparing the first 37 bits of the hash, using the SHA-1 hash mechanism. And yes its salted.
All those free messaging services that need all those permissions, you sign up and your contacts list is sent to them.
Suggest a better method. The developers of the popular app TextSecure have posted their thoughts on how to solve this problem, but found no way that both satisfied their needs, scalability, and the user's needs.
This page doesn't include reading the call history: https://www.facebook.com/help/... However, the call history appears in the play store appearance of the main facebook app. I'm not sure whether this has been newly added, and they have to refresh that page, or they just don't list it in that page.
This is nothing more than facebook wanting phone call data. The advantage for users is almost nonexistent. Its the modern way of stealing (or as they put it in their shiny presentations "harvesting") data.
This stuff is all good as long as its well documented which genes were changed and why. Because copyright (or patents) (or even (worst of all) trade secrets) on human DNA is the worst thing that can happen to our human society. We don't want only the well born to have better genes. But of course this won't happen. There will be a strong gene copyright lobby, and it will demand DNA to be copyrightable, to make research pay off.
Also, we should think of the possible pressure future parents may be in, in giving their children the best genes. Perhaps one day (rather sooner than later) we can change genes of living humans, too, e.g. with viruses, and then at least you can revide your parent's choices about your body.
I imagine some/many artists get screwed by the labels by giving up their copyrights. But at least some retain copyright of their work. In other cases, it's not abuse but just transfer of risk from artist to publisher. If your work is probably going to make between $10,000 and $1,000,000, wouldn't you rather sell it for $250,000 and let the publisher deal with the risk? At least conventional medium artists get copyrights, whereas almost all software devs handover copyright of their works to their employers.
Software development usually is done with the developer being hired by the company.
Also, which incentive does it create for content creators to extend periods of existing works?
No matter how much money they make, they still want more. How many financially successful businessmen and artists quit their profession after making a ton of money? Not many. They enjoy their work and they enjoy making money.
Its hard to copy a piece of land, and now have two of it.
While you can't copy it, you can simulate a copy by building multistory buildings like highrises and skyscrapers.
And this is generally allowed, isn't it?
Also, the law wasn't written for descendants to live off ideas of their anchestors.
Who cares? The copyrighted content is a commercial asset and usually descendents benefit from them. There is no need to write a special law about obvious things.
Yes, it is a commercial asset, but in many countries the clock starts to tick with the death of the creator.
When you are creating some content, like a book, neither its initial success nor its long term success is measurable. This is abused by labels which you have to give your whole copyright rights to. It either has some value, or its completely worthless.
Also, which incentive does it create for content creators to extend periods of existing works? Will they produce more content? I mean the copyright already fills their lifespan, what is there more to do? If periods are extended, then it should only happen for new works.
Real estate isn't something that's created by humans. Its part of our planet
So you're arguing that humans should have more ownership rights over something they did not create, land, and less ownership rights over something they did create, copyrighted content? Hmmm.
Its hard to copy a piece of land, and now have two of it.
The creators themselves won't bother whether the copyright becomes public domain 50 years or 70 years after their death.
I'm sure the copyright content creator and his descendents disagree.
Please note that the creator doesn't own the content anymore, often they have to give it to a company. Also, the law wasn't written for descendants to live off ideas of their anchestors. The 50 years rule has been made so that people can economically adjust to their parent's death, so that additional to the loss of the beloved family member there also isn't an immediate economic crisis.
Real estate isn't something that's created by humans. Its part of our planet, which is limited. You can easily copy content. The only purpose copyright exists is to create an incentive for people to create works. The creators themselves won't bother whether the copyright becomes public domain 50 years or 70 years after their death.
Slashdot Mirror
He had to finish the program and deliver it and the mechanisms required to build and distribute it to them.
Somebody might own copyright on your ideas or core, but copyright ownership doesn't force anybody to produce content, or "writing it down".
And what if your only objective is price, and you give the keys to the shady guy who claims to offer a free service?
Discoveries are made very irregularly, and are hard to plan. Therefore, its better for a company in the long run to "sandbag".
Wrong, its really verizon.
The joke may be old, but you shouldn't underestimate me.
Seems to involve alot of sleeping.
Obligatory: http://bash.org/?244321
The average enterprise class iPhone application isn't trusted lives with. Also, not inside an industry where an accident means deaths of hundreds of people at once. Nobody brings the average car accident in the news, for example when somebody kills themselves at the highway. But when a plane crashes, it comes in the news, so politicians and representatives of the airlines promise they do something, and tighten regulations. Meanwhile, car security is still shit as hell.
I guess its all formally proven. Is the average business iphone application formally proven?
Can you please stop with this plebs speak? This is a site for nerds, not for non-technical people. Say "hash" when you mean "hash". I mean is researching actual technical info so hard? For everyone not wanting to click links: its comparing the first 37 bits of the hash, using the SHA-1 hash mechanism. And yes its salted.
Yes, but the main server action is going on in one single thread.
freeciv only occupies one thread. The remaining ones are perfect for parallel work.
Almost fully agree.
All those free messaging services that need all those permissions, you sign up and your contacts list is sent to them.
Suggest a better method. The developers of the popular app TextSecure have posted their thoughts on how to solve this problem, but found no way that both satisfied their needs, scalability, and the user's needs.
Here it is, the FSM:
https://www.quantamagazine.org...
This is a "new google maps is shit" troll, one of a series. This time they even constructed a link to the story.
This page doesn't include reading the call history: https://www.facebook.com/help/...
However, the call history appears in the play store appearance of the main facebook app. I'm not sure whether this has been newly added, and they have to refresh that page, or they just don't list it in that page.
This is nothing more than facebook wanting phone call data. The advantage for users is almost nonexistent. Its the modern way of stealing (or as they put it in their shiny presentations "harvesting") data.
But they are so coooool. And that super secure lab that professor had in that science fiction movie I saw, had this tooo.
This stuff is all good as long as its well documented which genes were changed and why. Because copyright (or patents) (or even (worst of all) trade secrets) on human DNA is the worst thing that can happen to our human society. We don't want only the well born to have better genes. But of course this won't happen. There will be a strong gene copyright lobby, and it will demand DNA to be copyrightable, to make research pay off.
Also, we should think of the possible pressure future parents may be in, in giving their children the best genes. Perhaps one day (rather sooner than later) we can change genes of living humans, too, e.g. with viruses, and then at least you can revide your parent's choices about your body.
I imagine some/many artists get screwed by the labels by giving up their copyrights. But at least some retain copyright of their work. In other cases, it's not abuse but just transfer of risk from artist to publisher. If your work is probably going to make between $10,000 and $1,000,000, wouldn't you rather sell it for $250,000 and let the publisher deal with the risk? At least conventional medium artists get copyrights, whereas almost all software devs handover copyright of their works to their employers.
Software development usually is done with the developer being hired by the company.
No matter how much money they make, they still want more. How many financially successful businessmen and artists quit their profession after making a ton of money? Not many. They enjoy their work and they enjoy making money.
So, you agree there is no additional incentive?
What has become out of bash styled mail address combination?
While you can't copy it, you can simulate a copy by building multistory buildings like highrises and skyscrapers.
And this is generally allowed, isn't it?
Who cares? The copyrighted content is a commercial asset and usually descendents benefit from them. There is no need to write a special law about obvious things.
Yes, it is a commercial asset, but in many countries the clock starts to tick with the death of the creator.
When you are creating some content, like a book, neither its initial success nor its long term success is measurable. This is abused by labels which you have to give your whole copyright rights to. It either has some value, or its completely worthless.
Also, which incentive does it create for content creators to extend periods of existing works? Will they produce more content? I mean the copyright already fills their lifespan, what is there more to do? If periods are extended, then it should only happen for new works.
So you're arguing that humans should have more ownership rights over something they did not create, land, and less ownership rights over something they did create, copyrighted content? Hmmm.
Its hard to copy a piece of land, and now have two of it.
The creators themselves won't bother whether the copyright becomes public domain 50 years or 70 years after their death.
I'm sure the copyright content creator and his descendents disagree.
Please note that the creator doesn't own the content anymore, often they have to give it to a company. Also, the law wasn't written for descendants to live off ideas of their anchestors. The 50 years rule has been made so that people can economically adjust to their parent's death, so that additional to the loss of the beloved family member there also isn't an immediate economic crisis.
Real estate isn't something that's created by humans. Its part of our planet, which is limited. You can easily copy content. The only purpose copyright exists is to create an incentive for people to create works. The creators themselves won't bother whether the copyright becomes public domain 50 years or 70 years after their death.
Read his answer on the shorter copyright question here, where he opposes a 5 year term too:
http://interviews.slashdot.org...