It's a fine stopgap until the DVD shows up in the stores....
It's not like anybody who really cares about the movie is going to be happy with just seeing it on a rip, and most of the people who download (and are happy with) the rip aren't the kind who would have gone to see the movie in any case.
From what I can tell, net downloads (even if you presume that they actually represent lost sales) don't really account for a large percentage of movie company income -- but they make a fine straw-man when the RIAA and the MPAA go to congress asking for big-brother add-ons for your computer.
Most of the people I know who download these things collect them like bottle-caps. They collect way more than they can ever see -- and like many people have already said, the downloaded copies are generally way worse than what you get on a DVD -- and, unless you've spent a few thousand on your sound and video system it's not even going to be close to a movie experience even if you're viewing a proper DVD copy.
When MS came out with the 'un-removable' IE4, my roommate discovered that if you used the IE3 uninstaller on IE4, it uninstalled cleanly...
Yep... technical necessity.....
If you have released this program under a licence that opens up the source, you cannot withdraw that program from being under that licence unless you have a proviso permitting just that somewhere in the licence agreement.
You can't remove the license for the copies of the code that are 'out in the wild', but you have every right to release a copy of your own code under any other license you want (including the Microsoft EULA, presuming that it's legal).
an open-source license that will let programmers share ideas while also letting them retain the rights to their own software modifications.
Er, um, doesn't the GPL already do this??? You don't have the rights to -- say -- close-source the entire code, but you can do whatever you want with your own code.
If, on the other hand, he wants to go with a berkely-style license, then please go with the berkeley style. I'm one of those who believes that we already have enough licenses. I'm wondering if Phatak fully understands the licenses that are already out there?
If what he wants is a "look but don't touch" license (a'la some of MS's 'shared source" initiatives) then I'd be inclined to say "thanks but no thanks".
Perhaps the OSI should require people who want to propose yet another Open Source license to show cause why the new license provides something valuable beyond the already existing set.
but the ease of getting a driver's liscense is part of why 9/11 happened. Either driver's liscences should ensure residency and identity, or they ought not permit someone on a plane (etc.)
My point exactly. Security morons are assuming that the problem was that the IDs we had are somehow lacking [....] the problem is actually relying on IDs for security in the first place.
As far as I know, most of the 9/11 hijackers used things like their passports to get on the planes, and their IDs were accurate.
In other words, innaccurate IDs had almost nothing at all to do with 9/11.
My first thought was "yeah, but now we're quickly running out of people old enough to remember 'the war'.".... Ah, but now you've gotten yourselves a fresh new war to to mumble about (OK.. It's really more of an occupation than a war, but it's close enough).
The 'cage' will probably be incomplete. It will leak. This will make life hard on 'normal' RF readers, but special-build units may be able to read a passport at distance even despite the foil cover. In a worst case, you might even be able to take advantages of errors in it's design to make reading easier.
You don't have to send anything other than a hash on the raw data and/or the decoded data itself. The data in the RFID tag (encrypted or not) is it's own identifier. If all I want to do is track where you are, I don't even need to be able to decode the data. If I need the decoded data off of the card, I get it on the first read.
In any case, even if you give the chip adequate protection to prevent at-distance reading, then all of the advantages of the tag (vs smart-chip) go away -- but you still have the risk that (sophisticated) criminals will find ways to do distance readings... especially with changes in technology.
The problem with distance readings is multiple:
If I know who you are, and I can scan your passport, that data will now identify you (reverse replay attack -- no need to decode).
If cards of a given country have recognizable features, I may be able to identify someone carrying (say) a US passport.
People with passports, generally, are likely to be 'juicy' (foreign) targets. Responding to a scan means you're carying a passport.
There are various 'social engineering' methods to obtain the pasword. Obtaining the RFID data and the password can be done at completely unrelated times and location. Depepending on what's on them, this could be very useful for identity theft.
Some crooks will simply obtain/trade libraries of password data, and use that in dictionary attacks against a similar bank of encrypted RFID data. (script kiddie approach)
If you're physically scanning the passport, you no longer have any of the advantages of RFID over, say, magstripe or 2D barcodes.
In the meantime, You can still confirm someone's identity uniquely by the transmissions of their passport -- Who they are needs to be determined separately, but you don't need to decode an RFID to use it for tracking. -- it's just a case of having a transmitter/reciever that's powerful enough to get thru the passport's tinfoile hat.
Still -- if you have survival (and nominal payback) this reduces the needed return on investment by a 'glowing' company to result in statistical payback for investments in the field.
If they're looking at companies invested in in 1999-2000, we're talking about just before the dot-com bust. These companies would have just gotten going when the brown stuff hit the rapidly spinning blades. If 80-90% of venture capital investments are expected to crash and anywhere near half of those infant open source companies survived the dot-com bust, then I'd say that pretty much proves that open source is an incredibly good investment.
Like the old saying says -- lies damned lies and statistics.
Maybe you should just reject such email *before* accepting it?
And just how are you going to do that??? An RBL? Basically, you're eithere going to generate your own RBL, or you're going to use someone else's. If you're going to use someone else's then the best you can do is look for (an) RBL(s) that have a listing policy compatible with your views.
Some RBLs (like MAPS) have put a lot of energy and time into coming up with ways to keep out as much spam as possible without extensive false-positives. Doing better than that is likely to be full-time job 9or more0.
Things should work fine as long as the relative speed differences don't get
too high (of course, you'd then have a distance problem pretty fast).
My reall worry would be paying too much attention to the game, and not enough to your altitude...
It was a 14" Sony that I bought around 1985 as a display for my Dragon 64 (RS CoCo clone). The tuner died around 1999, and so when I bought a DVD player in 2000 I repaired it rather than buying a new one.
Last month my roommate gave it away or sold it on me (RMFH -- now gone).
Come to think of it, I think my sister still has the old Hitachi that my mom bought in the mid '70s.
In any case, when people still have 20 and 30 year old technology, it's working fine, and the alternative isn't even in wide distribution, I think that it's almost obscene to expect the entire consumer universe to just randomly switch over to an incompatible technology.
Part of the reason why Color TV became popular is that they made it compatible with Black and White -- even then, it was about another 30+ years before they stopped making black and white TVs.
Upshot: Mandating such a massive market change seems stupid -- especially in the light of the government and it's corporate masters championing 'market forces' as a cover story for most of their other stupidity.
So in this case, you can't eliminate all accounting mistakes and typos, but if some PHB needed to read this to question his spreadsheets, he's useless.
I'd put it another way: Loss compared to what? If a spreadsheet saves a company $100K/month, but an error in the spreadsheet costs $10K/month, then the spreadsheet is still doing the company $90K net on the profit side of the ledger.
Yes, it'd always be nice to kill that $10K bug, but until you do, you can still write it off as a cost of doing business.
That having been said, if you'd like to pay me $70/hour to find your $10K error, I think it would be a good deal in both directions.
Slashdot Mirror
So would that become "Bush monkey", "Bush's monkey" or "Monkey bush".
Expect it to be followed closely by a spider-controlled robet.
It's not like anybody who really cares about the movie is going to be happy with just seeing it on a rip, and most of the people who download (and are happy with) the rip aren't the kind who would have gone to see the movie in any case.
From what I can tell, net downloads (even if you presume that they actually represent lost sales) don't really account for a large percentage of movie company income -- but they make a fine straw-man when the RIAA and the MPAA go to congress asking for big-brother add-ons for your computer.
Most of the people I know who download these things collect them like bottle-caps. They collect way more than they can ever see -- and like many people have already said, the downloaded copies are generally way worse than what you get on a DVD -- and, unless you've spent a few thousand on your sound and video system it's not even going to be close to a movie experience even if you're viewing a proper DVD copy.
Kinda like the way they tried to patent the unix sudo command.
Same roommate, same trick -- and it still irks me that MS got away with claiming, in court, that IE4 was joined at the hip to the OS.
When MS came out with the 'un-removable' IE4, my roommate discovered that if you used the IE3 uninstaller on IE4, it uninstalled cleanly...
Yep... technical necessity.....
It will be 'an innovation'.
Personally, I don't se why they wouldn't have tabbed browsing.
Yeah, It took a few seconds to realize 'they're talking about wetware here, not software.'
The CBC has a slightly more detailed article (including related links). It also mentions that they found a new species of rabbit.
You can't remove the license for the copies of the code that are 'out in the wild', but you have every right to release a copy of your own code under any other license you want (including the Microsoft EULA, presuming that it's legal).
Er, um, doesn't the GPL already do this??? You don't have the rights to -- say -- close-source the entire code, but you can do whatever you want with your own code.
If, on the other hand, he wants to go with a berkely-style license, then please go with the berkeley style. I'm one of those who believes that we already have enough licenses. I'm wondering if Phatak fully understands the licenses that are already out there?
If what he wants is a "look but don't touch" license (a'la some of MS's 'shared source" initiatives) then I'd be inclined to say "thanks but no thanks".
Perhaps the OSI should require people who want to propose yet another Open Source license to show cause why the new license provides something valuable beyond the already existing set.
My point exactly. Security morons are assuming that the problem was that the IDs we had are somehow lacking [....] the problem is actually relying on IDs for security in the first place.
As far as I know, most of the 9/11 hijackers used things like their passports to get on the planes, and their IDs were accurate.
In other words, innaccurate IDs had almost nothing at all to do with 9/11.
Have you ever seen Robo-Cop??? This thing won't just maul a burgler -- I'll even blow up your best friend's car!
My first thought was "yeah, but now we're quickly running out of people old enough to remember 'the war'.".... Ah, but now you've gotten yourselves a fresh new war to to mumble about (OK.. It's really more of an occupation than a war, but it's close enough).
The 'cage' will probably be incomplete. It will leak. This will make life hard on 'normal' RF readers, but special-build units may be able to read a passport at distance even despite the foil cover. In a worst case, you might even be able to take advantages of errors in it's design to make reading easier.
In any case, even if you give the chip adequate protection to prevent at-distance reading, then all of the advantages of the tag (vs smart-chip) go away -- but you still have the risk that (sophisticated) criminals will find ways to do distance readings... especially with changes in technology.
The problem with distance readings is multiple:
In the meantime, You can still confirm someone's identity uniquely by the transmissions of their passport -- Who they are needs to be determined separately, but you don't need to decode an RFID to use it for tracking. -- it's just a case of having a transmitter/reciever that's powerful enough to get thru the passport's tinfoile hat.
Still -- if you have survival (and nominal payback) this reduces the needed return on investment by a 'glowing' company to result in statistical payback for investments in the field.
Like the old saying says -- lies damned lies and statistics.
And just how are you going to do that??? An RBL? Basically, you're eithere going to generate your own RBL, or you're going to use someone else's. If you're going to use someone else's then the best you can do is look for (an) RBL(s) that have a listing policy compatible with your views.
Some RBLs (like MAPS) have put a lot of energy and time into coming up with ways to keep out as much spam as possible without extensive false-positives. Doing better than that is likely to be full-time job 9or more0.
Man, talk about a quickie!
At least you have an excuse, if she starts to say "Boy, that was short!".
What good is an opposition party when the companies that count critical votes in the next election are in your pocket?
My reall worry would be paying too much attention to the game, and not enough to your altitude...
Last month my roommate gave it away or sold it on me (RMFH -- now gone).
Come to think of it, I think my sister still has the old Hitachi that my mom bought in the mid '70s.
In any case, when people still have 20 and 30 year old technology, it's working fine, and the alternative isn't even in wide distribution, I think that it's almost obscene to expect the entire consumer universe to just randomly switch over to an incompatible technology.
Part of the reason why Color TV became popular is that they made it compatible with Black and White -- even then, it was about another 30+ years before they stopped making black and white TVs.
Upshot: Mandating such a massive market change seems stupid -- especially in the light of the government and it's corporate masters championing 'market forces' as a cover story for most of their other stupidity.
I'd put it another way: Loss compared to what? If a spreadsheet saves a company $100K/month, but an error in the spreadsheet costs $10K/month, then the spreadsheet is still doing the company $90K net on the profit side of the ledger.
Yes, it'd always be nice to kill that $10K bug, but until you do, you can still write it off as a cost of doing business.
That having been said, if you'd like to pay me $70/hour to find your $10K error, I think it would be a good deal in both directions.