At the end of the article this guy goes on a bit about how he supports the use of MP3 and related formats, etc etc. He makes it clear that he is no fan of the RIAA. It seems to me that all he's saying is "This might be a problem, maybe we should look into it some more."
Scenario 1: Some emergency occurs and a patient needs an obscure and delicate operation that few surgeons can perform safely. It is decided that telesurgery over an unreliable connection is too risky, so a surgeon from a few states over is flown to the scene, only to arrive too late. The patient dies and everyone thinks, "If only the surgeon could have made it here faster..."
Scenario 2: Some emergency occurs and a patient needs an obscure and delicate operation that few surgeons can perform safely. Nobody wants to waste time, so a surgeon on the other side of the continent hops online and after a difficult and bumpy ride just barely manages to save the patient. Everyone thinks, "Gee, that was risky and there were a few scary moments but fortunately the surgeon could hear when it was and wasn't safe to cut and the patient survived!"
PHBs are exactly the ones it's being targetted at. PHBs are the ones who make the final call on what software the company should buy hundreds or thousands of liscences for. Microsoft is fully aware of this and doesn't care the least bit that PHBs are the only ones who buy their FUD (Even if that is the case, which I doubt; PHBs aren't the only stupid people).
Re:Gah. I can see it now...
on
Robot Wars
·
· Score: 1
I think it's the absurdity of that stereotype that American AC was commenting on.
The Zeroith Law of Robotocs
on
Robot Wars
·
· Score: 1
0. The ends justify the means.
Read "Foundation and Chaos." It's a prequil (not by Asimov, however) to the Foundation Trilogy. It points out that the first law is contradictory, because in many cases by not injuring a human being a robot causes harm to another human being through inaction. In this book, robots have concluded that the only way to deal with this is to formulate a 0th law that says the ends justify the means. The outcome of this is that they destroy Earth to force humans out into space, since they deem this best for humanity in the long run.
The fact that consumers are willing to pay more for games indicates they value them more highly.
Also, comparing how many times you've listened to a CD to how many times you've played a game isn't very valid, because playing a game once through takes much more time and is much more immersive.
A middleman, according to "Economics: Private and Public Choice" by James D. Gwartney, Richard L. Stroup, and Russel S. Sobel, is "A person who buys and sells, or who arranges trades. A middleman reduces transaction costs."
Neither does quantum crypto. The ciphertext is transmitted by ordinary means. Even if you were to send the ciphertext the same way you send the key, there would still be a transmission to be detected (although the mere act of detecting it would corrupt it). This also allows the length of the message to be determined. The advantage QC has over OTP is it allows snooping to be detected.
Quantum crypto allows Allice to send a one time pad to Bob and determine if it was intercepted or not. If it is intercepted then Allice discards the pad and tries again. Otherwise Allice uses the pad to encrypt the message and uses conventional means to transmit it. If someone intercepts the pad, then the message is never sent so there's nothing to cryptanalyze. Otherwise they have a message but no pad. Cryptanalysis of a message encrypted with a one time pad is mathematically impossible.
The distance issue is the main problem with this technology but progress is being made on that front and I'm sure it will only be a matter of time before it is solved.
I don't think anybody is claiming that this increases the total available bandwidth. What they are claiming is that it makes more efficient use of the available bandwidth by making formerly unusable bandwidth usable.
The lil' clip thingies on pens make cool clicking sounds if you flick 'em w/ your fingernails. Bugs the heck out of my friends, which is more than can be said of a keyboard clicking.
Would you neccesarily know if you'd been compromised? There's plenty of uses someone could have for a compromised account that you might never discover.
Perhaps they have the right, but it's still a stupid rule. If a show is going to enforce such a rule then people might as well just watch commercials on TV or the net.
Whether something is right or wrong doesn't have much to do with what the law (including the Constitution) says. Lawsuits like this are simply wrong and therefore should be prevented as much as possible. The best ways to acomplish this are to fight these cases rather than caving in, and informing your representatives that this is a problem and it is their responsibility to fix it.
So we should produce our own content protection mechanism, post a Public Challenge that Felton can participate in and write a paper about, then make clear legal threats (i.e. a cease and desist letter) or perhaps even a lawsuit.
Slashdot Mirror
Oh that's wonderful, it picked up an old subject line.
First of all, this isn't genetic engineering. This is simply the growing of muscle tissue in a lab.
Also, it might be amusing if cows become an exotic species that is only seen in zoos. Even if they don't live on in zoos they'll live on in India.
At the end of the article this guy goes on a bit about how he supports the use of MP3 and related formats, etc etc. He makes it clear that he is no fan of the RIAA. It seems to me that all he's saying is "This might be a problem, maybe we should look into it some more."
Scenario 1:
Some emergency occurs and a patient needs an obscure and delicate operation that few surgeons can perform safely. It is decided that telesurgery over an unreliable connection is too risky, so a surgeon from a few states over is flown to the scene, only to arrive too late. The patient dies and everyone thinks, "If only the surgeon could have made it here faster..."
Scenario 2:
Some emergency occurs and a patient needs an obscure and delicate operation that few surgeons can perform safely. Nobody wants to waste time, so a surgeon on the other side of the continent hops online and after a difficult and bumpy ride just barely manages to save the patient. Everyone thinks, "Gee, that was risky and there were a few scary moments but fortunately the surgeon could hear when it was and wasn't safe to cut and the patient survived!"
I think Shadow99_1 was describing not DDR but the lack of local arcades in his/her area.
Washington Post makes worms now?
Actually it is meaningful, it was just encrypted by xoring it with the following one time pad:
1100100000 0010000011
0010110000 0110010101
1000100011 0011110110
1011100011 0010111111
PHBs are exactly the ones it's being targetted at. PHBs are the ones who make the final call on what software the company should buy hundreds or thousands of liscences for. Microsoft is fully aware of this and doesn't care the least bit that PHBs are the only ones who buy their FUD (Even if that is the case, which I doubt; PHBs aren't the only stupid people).
I think it's the absurdity of that stereotype that American AC was commenting on.
0. The ends justify the means.
Read "Foundation and Chaos." It's a prequil (not by Asimov, however) to the Foundation Trilogy. It points out that the first law is contradictory, because in many cases by not injuring a human being a robot causes harm to another human being through inaction. In this book, robots have concluded that the only way to deal with this is to formulate a 0th law that says the ends justify the means. The outcome of this is that they destroy Earth to force humans out into space, since they deem this best for humanity in the long run.
The fact that consumers are willing to pay more for games indicates they value them more highly.
Also, comparing how many times you've listened to a CD to how many times you've played a game isn't very valid, because playing a game once through takes much more time and is much more immersive.
A middleman, according to "Economics: Private and Public Choice" by James D. Gwartney, Richard L. Stroup, and Russel S. Sobel, is "A person who buys and sells, or who arranges trades. A middleman reduces transaction costs."
Neither does quantum crypto. The ciphertext is transmitted by ordinary means. Even if you were to send the ciphertext the same way you send the key, there would still be a transmission to be detected (although the mere act of detecting it would corrupt it). This also allows the length of the message to be determined. The advantage QC has over OTP is it allows snooping to be detected.
The US government has classified crypto technology as munitions in the past, so I see no reason they wouldn't do the same here.
Quantum crypto allows Allice to send a one time pad to Bob and determine if it was intercepted or not. If it is intercepted then Allice discards the pad and tries again. Otherwise Allice uses the pad to encrypt the message and uses conventional means to transmit it. If someone intercepts the pad, then the message is never sent so there's nothing to cryptanalyze. Otherwise they have a message but no pad. Cryptanalysis of a message encrypted with a one time pad is mathematically impossible.
The distance issue is the main problem with this technology but progress is being made on that front and I'm sure it will only be a matter of time before it is solved.
Perhaps Microsoft wants to be a hardware company and has decided the easiest way to do that is to turn all hardware into software.
I don't think anybody is claiming that this increases the total available bandwidth. What they are claiming is that it makes more efficient use of the available bandwidth by making formerly unusable bandwidth usable.
The lil' clip thingies on pens make cool clicking sounds if you flick 'em w/ your fingernails. Bugs the heck out of my friends, which is more than can be said of a keyboard clicking.
Would you neccesarily know if you'd been compromised? There's plenty of uses someone could have for a compromised account that you might never discover.
Perhaps they have the right, but it's still a stupid rule. If a show is going to enforce such a rule then people might as well just watch commercials on TV or the net.
Whether something is right or wrong doesn't have much to do with what the law (including the Constitution) says. Lawsuits like this are simply wrong and therefore should be prevented as much as possible. The best ways to acomplish this are to fight these cases rather than caving in, and informing your representatives that this is a problem and it is their responsibility to fix it.
Is it really such a misnomer? Managing rights implies limiting them and is exactly what DRM does.
So we should produce our own content protection mechanism, post a Public Challenge that Felton can participate in and write a paper about, then make clear legal threats (i.e. a cease and desist letter) or perhaps even a lawsuit.
As I recall (disclaimer: my memory sucks), Bob was Miranda's pet project. Funny that Bill's wife was the originator of one of Microsoft's big flops.
I just stuff old computer parts in boxes under my bed, only to be removed when I get bored and feel like seeing if they still work just for kicks.