I actually watched the broadcast, and it was disgusting.
The shmuck claimed that "every family" does it, as does "every kid". When asked how much it would be, he said they have no idea yet, but wants it to be worked out in consultation. Obviously thats a lie, as other posts point out they want anywhere from 3-10%.
He pointed out that this levy would make it OK, but not for those who do wholesale copying.
What was worse is the show didn't have anyone else on there representing the other view.
My question is: If a levy is set, does this mean I am free to download any mp3 I wish? Could I borrow all of my friends CDs and have hundreds of thousands of mp3s legally? Cause if it does, bring it on! I will never buy a CD again!
At the moment I don't mp3 illegally (IE I buy my own CDs and mp3 them, but not others), but if it was made legal through the levy, I would certainly burn hundreds of CDs from friends.
So what do you do with this wonderful invention? Well, a system called SMS is bolted on for unreliably sending very short messages that take an age to type in. For the luxury of sending (or not; who knows?) this uselessly small piece of information, you are prepared to pay the same price as a about a minute's worth of full voice communication.
Note: I hate SMS, it feels like I'm on a 300baud modem at an old BBS.
But there is an arguement for it. In Australia, flag-fall is often 20c AU, and call costs is in the range of 60c AU per minute. SMSing a phone number, address, or a short message can be cheaper then calling. Also useful if you need to send same address to more than 1 person, or if you don't actually wanna talk to the person (IE you just send them the info, you don't need to bother about asking how aunt mary is).
The best service was AT&T, internal SMS, but they still have a 2.2% failure rate. That really is pathetic. Surely a 99.9% success rate is more resonable?
I would be interested in seeing how they failed. Was it inside the networks? Or did the messages never leave the phone? What were the Telco excuses? WHY is SMS so unreliable?
You are totally right...it goes way way way back...especially in CSE. But I only have first hand knowledge since about '93/4.
The coolest thing about CSE (Computer Science and Engineering) @ UNSW, is that they have not ever sold out to Microsoft, unlike those losers in Information Technology, who when MS came knocking with a big fat cheque, bent over and let them take whatever they wanted. The IT department now basically only teach people how to use MS products.
MS have come to CSE with *very* large checks...but CSE has constantly refused to take them.
The fact is guns put the "security" in "security guard". Besides hunting, the reason most people buy guns is for safety.
The reason more people are buying SUVs is for safety. And they are also wrong (studies have shown...). Just because people think something is true, doesn't make it true (isn't that what margeting/propaganda is about?).
The Safety issue regarding guns is a better arguement then the "Good VS Bad" arguement. As the previous poster pointed out, you don't have a nuclear reactor in your backyard, nor your own chemical weapon creation plant. By your arguements, chemical & nuclear weapons should be available to every person on earth, cause they aren't "bad".
I have also been thinking....being a bloke, we can only handle X things in our brain at the same time. Remembering a process for chaning our name to a username, as well as a password (3 objects) probabally streaches us to far.
Just remembering a password may be easier. It may mean memorising 6 passwords (PIN, home, work etc etc), but that still is much easier then 6 usernames and 6 passwords. Thats 6 things, verses 36 things (combinations).
Firstly, no username. People know their own name better than any other word. Trying to give them another one is an exercise in futility. Usernames are frequently very easily guessable, and if all the system's passwords are unique, unnecessary.
Passwords should be system assigned, firstly to ensure uniqueness, and secondly to make damn sure that they are from an appropriately large set of possibilities.
Sounds good...but if someone can't remember a username based upon their own name, how can they be expected to remember a system assigned password?
Poorly organized. Lynx-optimized website (with only two pages), only two months to write papers, an overly broad topic, and being held in a pseudo-third world country, away from the main countries where most research is being done, don't exactly add up to success. I'll be surprised if they register more than 500 attendees.
Singapore isn't exactly a small backwater. I have attended several conferences there, including Broadcast Asia who have something like 11,000 visitors from 42 countries. BA 2002 was totally huge, held in a area of several square kilometres. Anybody who is somebody goes to BA.
Though Singapore isn't USA/Europe centric (though it is an ex-british colony), for people in the Australasian area, it often hosts *the* conferences you should be at. And in case you haven't noticed, Asia is the next big market.
All he did was restate the summary of the paper, and he gets a +4.
yah, but the paper is 21 pages.
A classic example...if someone needs to read 21 pages to use a security system, they won't use it. if they can get the paper in a 3 point summary, they will use it. It proves that useability is important, possibly more so then the system itself.
All he did was restate the summary of the paper, and he gets a +4. yah, but the paper is 21 pages.
A classic example...if someone needs to read 21 pages to use a security system, they won't use it. if they can get the paper in a 3 point summary, they will use it. It proves that useability is important, possibly more so then the system itself.
The lack of ease of use security systems are often their greatest security flaw. Good security often make themselves hard to use, and thus undermine their own security. IE
- 10 character passwords, non-dictionary words, alpha-numeric. Safe, but can't remember them. So you write it on a post it note.
- Multiple levels of security. This means multiple usernames and passwords. This means the user keeps a list of them in their palm pilot/wallet.
- Secure systems invite back-doors (same as leaving a key under your door-mat...stupid, but very useful if you lock your keys inside).
Some companies base their security around no-one knowing anything about it. Microsoft is trying to do great things with UI the ease of use, but in doing so they destroy security.
If you do *not* have an easy to use high-security system, people *won't* use it! And if they don't use it, it is totally useless. People will always pick ease of use over security. They will pick IE and OE because things "just work", they will write their passwords on post-it notes on their screens, cause they can't remember them, they will leave keys under doormats.
You may find that Pern and Freedom are fairly simular (though Freedom is much more simplistic).
I agree with your comments, though I do own the freedom series, and have found it an enjoyable read (though certainly not brilliant). If you are looking for brilliance, don't read it.
Slashdot Mirror
I actually watched the broadcast, and it was disgusting.
The shmuck claimed that "every family" does it, as does "every kid". When asked how much it would be, he said they have no idea yet, but wants it to be worked out in consultation. Obviously thats a lie, as other posts point out they want anywhere from 3-10%.
He pointed out that this levy would make it OK, but not for those who do wholesale copying.
What was worse is the show didn't have anyone else on there representing the other view.
My question is: If a levy is set, does this mean I am free to download any mp3 I wish? Could I borrow all of my friends CDs and have hundreds of thousands of mp3s legally? Cause if it does, bring it on! I will never buy a CD again!
At the moment I don't mp3 illegally (IE I buy my own CDs and mp3 them, but not others), but if it was made legal through the levy, I would certainly burn hundreds of CDs from friends.
sweet...thanks for the info.
Now that I think about, GPS contact satellites without a directional dish.
/slaps myself in head.
I just re-read the last paragraph of the article. The author drives around listening to it.
I still don't know *why* it works, but thats due to my misunderstanding of satellite technology.
For this reason, I'm guessing that satellite radio receivers would be a big hit in Ryder/UHaul trucks.
would satellite receivers work on a moving vehicle?
(I'm thinking along the lines of pay TV satellite receivers, which need to be aimed fairly well).
Is a question that is raised in the article.
At first glance I thought "no way!". But then again, I thought the same way about pay-TV.
What do others think?
So what do you do with this wonderful invention? Well, a system called SMS is bolted on for unreliably sending very short messages that take an age to type in. For the luxury of sending (or not; who knows?) this uselessly small piece of information, you are prepared to pay the same price as a about a minute's worth of full voice communication.
Note: I hate SMS, it feels like I'm on a 300baud modem at an old BBS.
But there is an arguement for it. In Australia, flag-fall is often 20c AU, and call costs is in the range of 60c AU per minute. SMSing a phone number, address, or a short message can be cheaper then calling. Also useful if you need to send same address to more than 1 person, or if you don't actually wanna talk to the person (IE you just send them the info, you don't need to bother about asking how aunt mary is).
The best service was AT&T, internal SMS, but they still have a 2.2% failure rate. That really is pathetic. Surely a 99.9% success rate is more resonable?
I would be interested in seeing how they failed. Was it inside the networks? Or did the messages never leave the phone? What were the Telco excuses? WHY is SMS so unreliable?
Don't be an idiot. How many people, do you think, will buy stock if it means all their personal assets can be taken for the company's debts?
You mean a person would have to take responsibility for their investments? Wow! How very un-american!
How true is this? It sounds absolutly outrageous, something from a bad rip-off of 1984.
I WANT to be able to go camping again and not run into a family of fatsos 10 meters away in their trailer (with TV and VCR).
Get real, go camping for real. if you are only willing to camp where you can drive a vehicle, expect other idiots to camp near you.
Does EA produce their own stuff, or do they get other people to produce stuff, then market it?
You are totally right...it goes way way way back...especially in CSE. But I only have first hand knowledge since about '93/4.
The coolest thing about CSE (Computer Science and Engineering) @ UNSW, is that they have not ever sold out to Microsoft, unlike those losers in Information Technology, who when MS came knocking with a big fat cheque, bent over and let them take whatever they wanted. The IT department now basically only teach people how to use MS products.
MS have come to CSE with *very* large checks...but CSE has constantly refused to take them.
The Uni of New South Wales Computer Science and Engineering department has been running unix/linux for years, no duel boot.
8 years ago it was Sun Solaris.
5 Years ago they moved to Intel Solaris
Now they have (or are) moving to Intel Linux.
anyway, good stuff at Uni of Wollongong.
The fact is guns put the "security" in "security guard". Besides hunting, the reason most people buy guns is for safety.
The reason more people are buying SUVs is for safety. And they are also wrong (studies have shown...). Just because people think something is true, doesn't make it true (isn't that what margeting/propaganda is about?).
The Safety issue regarding guns is a better arguement then the "Good VS Bad" arguement. As the previous poster pointed out, you don't have a nuclear reactor in your backyard, nor your own chemical weapon creation plant. By your arguements, chemical & nuclear weapons should be available to every person on earth, cause they aren't "bad".
But the gun
Does your theory also apply to other countries...such as those with weapons of mass destruction?
hehehe...
Mad Max meets Prisilla: Queent of the Desert
this could certainly put a new twist into Mad Mad!
Bin Laden is really just a bearded old man.
Santa Claus?
ah, that makes sense.
I have also been thinking....being a bloke, we can only handle X things in our brain at the same time. Remembering a process for chaning our name to a username, as well as a password (3 objects) probabally streaches us to far.
Just remembering a password may be easier. It may mean memorising 6 passwords (PIN, home, work etc etc), but that still is much easier then 6 usernames and 6 passwords. Thats 6 things, verses 36 things (combinations).
Firstly, no username. People know their own name better than any other word. Trying to give them another one is an exercise in futility. Usernames are frequently very easily guessable, and if all the system's passwords are unique, unnecessary.
Passwords should be system assigned, firstly to ensure uniqueness, and secondly to make damn sure that they are from an appropriately large set of possibilities.
Sounds good...but if someone can't remember a username based upon their own name, how can they be expected to remember a system assigned password?
Poorly organized. Lynx-optimized website (with only two pages), only two months to write papers, an overly broad topic, and being held in a pseudo-third world country, away from the main countries where most research is being done, don't exactly add up to success. I'll be surprised if they register more than 500 attendees.
Singapore isn't exactly a small backwater. I have attended several conferences there, including Broadcast Asia who have something like 11,000 visitors from 42 countries. BA 2002 was totally huge, held in a area of several square kilometres. Anybody who is somebody goes to BA.
Though Singapore isn't USA/Europe centric (though it is an ex-british colony), for people in the Australasian area, it often hosts *the* conferences you should be at. And in case you haven't noticed, Asia is the next big market.
To be honest, I read the paper, not the story. The paper was linked directly from SD, which was the link I followed.
So my post was similar to the summary? so I guess we musta read the same paper.
woohoo
All he did was restate the summary of the paper, and he gets a +4.
yah, but the paper is 21 pages.
A classic example...if someone needs to read 21 pages to use a security system, they won't use it. if they can get the paper in a 3 point summary, they will use it. It proves that useability is important, possibly more so then the system itself.
All he did was restate the summary of the paper, and he gets a +4.
yah, but the paper is 21 pages.
A classic example...if someone needs to read 21 pages to use a security system, they won't use it. if they can get the paper in a 3 point summary, they will use it. It proves that useability is important, possibly more so then the system itself.
The lack of ease of use security systems are often their greatest security flaw. Good security often make themselves hard to use, and thus undermine their own security. IE
- 10 character passwords, non-dictionary words, alpha-numeric. Safe, but can't remember them. So you write it on a post it note.
- Multiple levels of security. This means multiple usernames and passwords. This means the user keeps a list of them in their palm pilot/wallet.
- Secure systems invite back-doors (same as leaving a key under your door-mat...stupid, but very useful if you lock your keys inside).
Some companies base their security around no-one knowing anything about it. Microsoft is trying to do great things with UI the ease of use, but in doing so they destroy security.
If you do *not* have an easy to use high-security system, people *won't* use it! And if they don't use it, it is totally useless. People will always pick ease of use over security. They will pick IE and OE because things "just work", they will write their passwords on post-it notes on their screens, cause they can't remember them, they will leave keys under doormats.
You may find that Pern and Freedom are fairly simular (though Freedom is much more simplistic).
I agree with your comments, though I do own the freedom series, and have found it an enjoyable read (though certainly not brilliant). If you are looking for brilliance, don't read it.