Was it ever canonically established if the force is subject to the speed of light? Could we feel the voices crying out before seeing the event?
If it was no subject to the speed of light, and would be instantaneous, we would have felt it 2.2 Million years ago. If you want a great movie moment of having some "force-enabled" earthians feeling the disturbance right before the gamma ray reaches us, the information propagation speed in the force would be insignificantly smaller than that of light, as the event was (on the planetary scale) very far away.
With certs you also want to have the property that everyone sees the same. The Bitcoin blockchain solves a similar problem: to prevent double spend the blockchain has to be the same for all parties. There is even a project trying to achieve that with the blockchain: Namecoin.
The disadvantage is that clients either have to download the whole blockchain and ask as many parties as possible whether there were any updates, to be sure they have the longest branch of the blockchain, or they have to trust some server that has done that for them.
Why do you want to connect the moon with the Internet? There is nobody on the moon. You should rather try to establish a 24h broadband connection to the ISS, which currently doesn't exist (its only a couple of hours per day when you can make video connections to ISS).
The energy and water companies will know exactly when you shower, cook, are on a vacation, and when your wife has a visit she doesn't tell you about.
As long as you live in a country with enough rainwater, I rather like water leaking from the network than data leaking about me.
Its a nice idea to have a meter that monitors when I consume how much. But I don't want it to send the data to the energy company first, the data should stay in my network.
You can design billing protocols without fine-grained monitoring. Just have a device that monitors how much you consume, that is controlled by the energy company, but that can't communicate with the energy company, only with your device, that acts as a proxy. The communications between the device and the company should be not encrypted, but signed, to ensure no data leaks. When its billing day, the energy company submits a signed mask containing when energy costed how much. The device then compares the values with its stored data, and answers with the amount to pay. No fine-grained data involved here, and the proxy ensures this is the only communication. For information purposes, the proxy can retrieve fine-grained information from the device and show these to the customer/without/ sending it to the company first. And for the leaks it is sufficient to monitor only one hour, say, per month, then the devices can send fine grained data, and the companies can check whether there is a leak.
You are not stupid when you develop "web apps" -- you get al your customer's data. You are only stupid when you use them for more serious things than 2048.
I'm not using Chrome or IE, and I don't care how secure their sandboxes are. I simply don't agree with the DRM concept in general, because it limits my rights, the problems with reporting security issues, and it only affects the customers (not the actual pirates).
The problem with the security issues depends from how well the DRM is sandboxed. If it is sandboxed good, then even a highjacked DRM can't harm anybody. If it is sandboxed badly or there is a security issue in the sandbox itself, we have a problem. For the case the sandbox has a security hole, fixing it could mean the CDM breaks, as it thinks the sandbox has been tampered with.
And no, running a JS code is not the same as running the EME plugin.
Do you know NaCL? Do you not agree with NaCL because it can execute DRM code?
Second, it absolutely absolutely ignores countries not covered by Netflix - which is pretty much everywhere outside America and northern part of Europe.
Already now certain youtube videos are blocked in several countries because of copyright disputes. And I can't watch BBC videos as I'm no resident of england.
Yeah. And the point is? What has this to do with DRM?
With website js, your firefox already runs closed-source software all the time. Everything Mozilla creates and ships will be open source, and firefox will download the CDM and execute it in a sandbox, just like the js. I doubt that the sandbox chrome or IE have are as secure as the Firefox sandbox.
Mozilla must ask the user for their consent whether to install the CDM, as they must at least accept the license. This could be a good spot for Mozilla to explain that DRM is bad, while still allowing the user to click "Yes, I want to restrict my freedom".
W3C allows EME to become a standard or not doesn' bother Microsoft or Google.
Already now certain youtube videos are blocked in several countries because of copyright disputes. And I can't watch BBC videos as I'm no resident of england.
The other browser vendors have implemented EME, even IE, which is (caution, sarcasm ahead) well known for implementing the newest HTML5 technologies. Mozilla's only option was to rescue what could be rescued. Blame Google, MS and the MPAA instead, they have deserved the shitstorm.
That is exactly my point. I hate to use the build-in video player in FF (and the build-in Pdf viewer is horrible, too).
I like the built-in pdf viewer, not because I think its better than adobe native pdf viewer but because I don't have to install yet another closed source plugin, for which I don't know how much access it has to my system. It comes shipped with firefox as default, and I can view most pdfs with it. When I want to fill a form I have the time to click on the download button and do it on Okular. Right now the pdf.js team is heavily optimizing the viewer, so the bad situation perhaps improves.
And the built-in video player is a huge simplification both for website creators and for browser owners. They don't have to find a swf file which plays my video, or buy any Adobe swf editor, they just simply place a <video> tag on the website. And for the built-in player you have a right-click menu, where you can get the URL of the video, if you want to download it. The video becomes a native citizen of the web, as it deserves to be.
Also I want the advantages of a computer: that I can save the video and watch again later. Why should I degrade my computer to a TV (streaming only)? I know that Netflix and Hollywood wants to kill the computer model, I don't need Mozilla to help them with that.
I also want these advantages, and I want a computer that obeys me and not some content provider that wants to enforce an outdated business model. But does your addon also make DRMed flash vids downloadable? If no, then nothing has been lost, except that perhaps DRM can be made easier. I also don't want DRM, but I think when it helps websites to get away from flash I can bear it to exist for the next couple years. In the long term, hollywood will realize that DRM is completely useless, and they have lost the war. At least I hope so.
We are only at the beginning of the war on general computation. We will one day build machines that will be better than us, and we will have to determine who controls those machines.
Any DRM will be bypassed, sooner or later, you only will need to wait for the tools to be developed. I don't think a DRM should be opposed because then you can't pirate anymore.
And "Flash is worse" was meant in terms of overall quality of flash. So take, for example, speed. The Actionscript runtime doesn't have the advancements of the recent javascript engines, so flash is slower. Flash is very undeterministic in its behaviour, clunky, closed-source, flash programs are hard to debug, and flash updater is super annoying. Also flash was given up by its creator, Adobe. Its just a huge pain, and apple was right when they told not to support it on the IPhone.
Current support is accomplished by interfacing to the OS, the cisco binaries are not out yet, but we can hope. And then Mozilla would still need to implement it and then it would take at least 12 weeks until it is tested and ships to the users.
They were tricked by Google. Google said, they would soon remove support for H.264, but never made it true.
Now they have learned I suppose that they can't influence the whole browser market, when they are alone. There was also this problem that ogv didn't work on IOS devices, and most HTML5 video pages back then were designed for the IPhone, as every website owner assumed (and still assumes) that every browser has flash. So the website owners only supported H.264 as it would run on IPhone.
Slashdot Mirror
Was it ever canonically established if the force is subject to the speed of light? Could we feel the voices crying out before seeing the event?
If it was no subject to the speed of light, and would be instantaneous, we would have felt it 2.2 Million years ago. If you want a great movie moment of having some "force-enabled" earthians feeling the disturbance right before the gamma ray reaches us, the information propagation speed in the force would be insignificantly smaller than that of light, as the event was (on the planetary scale) very far away.
With certs you also want to have the property that everyone sees the same. The Bitcoin blockchain solves a similar problem: to prevent double spend the blockchain has to be the same for all parties. There is even a project trying to achieve that with the blockchain: Namecoin.
The disadvantage is that clients either have to download the whole blockchain and ask as many parties as possible whether there were any updates, to be sure they have the longest branch of the blockchain, or they have to trust some server that has done that for them.
Why do you want to connect the moon with the Internet? There is nobody on the moon. You should rather try to establish a 24h broadband connection to the ISS, which currently doesn't exist (its only a couple of hours per day when you can make video connections to ISS).
AC is right, it expires today.
No, Bentivolio and Amash were nays. Michigan has more than just two seats.
I assume they will need some sort of a "magnetic map" of the earth.
Linus gave an intro speech for the course. That doesn't mean he's going to be teaching it.
The course staffer is Jerry Cooperstein.
Its just like with the twitter or facebook accounts of politicians or famous people. They give the photo, but the work is done by someone else.
Or the "adding a printer without privs" lesson.
The energy and water companies will know exactly when you shower, cook, are on a vacation, and when your wife has a visit she doesn't tell you about.
As long as you live in a country with enough rainwater, I rather like water leaking from the network than data leaking about me.
Its a nice idea to have a meter that monitors when I consume how much. But I don't want it to send the data to the energy company first, the data should stay in my network.
You can design billing protocols without fine-grained monitoring. Just have a device that monitors how much you consume, that is controlled by the energy company, but that can't communicate with the energy company, only with your device, that acts as a proxy. The communications between the device and the company should be not encrypted, but signed, to ensure no data leaks. When its billing day, the energy company submits a signed mask containing when energy costed how much. The device then compares the values with its stored data, and answers with the amount to pay. No fine-grained data involved here, and the proxy ensures this is the only communication. For information purposes, the proxy can retrieve fine-grained information from the device and show these to the customer /without/ sending it to the company first. And for the leaks it is sufficient to monitor only one hour, say, per month, then the devices can send fine grained data, and the companies can check whether there is a leak.
So then, watch it from the cloud!
Smoke from what? Too much current? Its pretty hard to make a pothead smoke!
Outsource them. Not to India, but a private company. Do it like NSA.
You are not stupid when you develop "web apps" -- you get al your customer's data. You are only stupid when you use them for more serious things than 2048.
I'm not using Chrome or IE, and I don't care how secure their sandboxes are. I simply don't agree with the DRM concept in general, because it limits my rights, the problems with reporting security issues, and it only affects the customers (not the actual pirates).
The problem with the security issues depends from how well the DRM is sandboxed. If it is sandboxed good, then even a highjacked DRM can't harm anybody. If it is sandboxed badly or there is a security issue in the sandbox itself, we have a problem. For the case the sandbox has a security hole, fixing it could mean the CDM breaks, as it thinks the sandbox has been tampered with.
And no, running a JS code is not the same as running the EME plugin.
Do you know NaCL? Do you not agree with NaCL because it can execute DRM code?
Second, it absolutely absolutely ignores countries not covered by Netflix - which is pretty much everywhere outside America and northern part of Europe.
Already now certain youtube videos are blocked in several countries because of copyright disputes. And I can't watch BBC videos as I'm no resident of england.
Yeah. And the point is? What has this to do with DRM?
Perhaps I've misunderstood.
Wikipedia states: "The initial enablers for DRM in HTML5 were Google and Microsoft.". I don't know about safari or opera.
With website js, your firefox already runs closed-source software all the time. Everything Mozilla creates and ships will be open source, and firefox will download the CDM and execute it in a sandbox, just like the js. I doubt that the sandbox chrome or IE have are as secure as the Firefox sandbox.
Mozilla must ask the user for their consent whether to install the CDM, as they must at least accept the license. This could be a good spot for Mozilla to explain that DRM is bad, while still allowing the user to click "Yes, I want to restrict my freedom".
W3C allows EME to become a standard or not doesn' bother Microsoft or Google.
Already now certain youtube videos are blocked in several countries because of copyright disputes. And I can't watch BBC videos as I'm no resident of england.
The other browser vendors have implemented EME, even IE, which is (caution, sarcasm ahead) well known for implementing the newest HTML5 technologies. Mozilla's only option was to rescue what could be rescued. Blame Google, MS and the MPAA instead, they have deserved the shitstorm.
That is exactly my point. I hate to use the build-in video player in FF (and the build-in Pdf viewer is horrible, too).
I like the built-in pdf viewer, not because I think its better than adobe native pdf viewer but because I don't have to install yet another closed source plugin, for which I don't know how much access it has to my system. It comes shipped with firefox as default, and I can view most pdfs with it. When I want to fill a form I have the time to click on the download button and do it on Okular.
Right now the pdf.js team is heavily optimizing the viewer, so the bad situation perhaps improves.
And the built-in video player is a huge simplification both for website creators and for browser owners. They don't have to find a swf file which plays my video, or buy any Adobe swf editor, they just simply place a <video> tag on the website. And for the built-in player you have a right-click menu, where you can get the URL of the video, if you want to download it. The video becomes a native citizen of the web, as it deserves to be.
Also I want the advantages of a computer: that I can save the video and watch again later. Why should I degrade my computer to a TV (streaming only)? I know that Netflix and Hollywood wants to kill the computer model, I don't need Mozilla to help them with that.
I also want these advantages, and I want a computer that obeys me and not some content provider that wants to enforce an outdated business model.
But does your addon also make DRMed flash vids downloadable? If no, then nothing has been lost, except that perhaps DRM can be made easier.
I also don't want DRM, but I think when it helps websites to get away from flash I can bear it to exist for the next couple years. In the long term, hollywood will realize that DRM is completely useless, and they have lost the war. At least I hope so.
We are only at the beginning of the war on general computation. We will one day build machines that will be better than us, and we will have to determine who controls those machines.
Any DRM will be bypassed, sooner or later, you only will need to wait for the tools to be developed.
I don't think a DRM should be opposed because then you can't pirate anymore.
And "Flash is worse" was meant in terms of overall quality of flash. So take, for example, speed. The Actionscript runtime doesn't have the advancements of the recent javascript engines, so flash is slower. Flash is very undeterministic in its behaviour, clunky, closed-source, flash programs are hard to debug, and flash updater is super annoying. Also flash was given up by its creator, Adobe. Its just a huge pain, and apple was right when they told not to support it on the IPhone.
This is by no means the end of the battle over DRM and Copyright - it’s just the beginning.
And the battle is just the beginning of the war on general computation.
will spark a lively discussion!
It won't be lively, but rather static.
OK, got it, its only based on VLC.
It's not just flash, it's also silverlight and googles DRM infected videolan plugin that this avoid...
Where is DRM in the videolan plugin? Does it come from google? I've thought it is independent from google.
Current support is accomplished by interfacing to the OS, the cisco binaries are not out yet, but we can hope. And then Mozilla would still need to implement it and then it would take at least 12 weeks until it is tested and ships to the users.
They were tricked by Google. Google said, they would soon remove support for H.264, but never made it true.
Now they have learned I suppose that they can't influence the whole browser market, when they are alone. There was also this problem that ogv didn't work on IOS devices, and most HTML5 video pages back then were designed for the IPhone, as every website owner assumed (and still assumes) that every browser has flash. So the website owners only supported H.264 as it would run on IPhone.