The title of the article is "The 50 most significant moments of Internet history", the title of the Slashdot story? "Remembering 50 Years of (and Leading Up To) the Internet".. whatever, the fuck, that means.
The company won't pursue patents that are of little value. You'd have a pretty hard time convincing legal that they should waste their budget on filing stupid patents.
well, that's the only link I could find.. and frankly, I can't really tell if he's just faking ignorance to claim that he had some kind of epiphany that you too can share, if you just go buy his book. In fact, the apology is likely in said book which was considered hilarious by everyone in the security industry at the time. "Bruce Discovers Cryptography Can't Cure Cancer" and such. I guess you've gotta have someone to say the obvious things.
"I came to security from cryptography, and framed the problem with classical cryptography thinking. Most writings about security come from this perspective, and it can be summed up pretty easily: Security threats are to be avoided using preventive countermeasures.
For decades we have used this approach to computer security. We draw boxes around the different players and lines between them. We define different attackers -- eavesdroppers, impersonators, thieves -- and their capabilities. We use preventive countermeasures like encryption and access control to avoid different threats. If we can avoid the threats, we've won. If we can't, we've lost.
Imagine my surprise when I learned that the world doesn't work this way."
I don't have bookmarks from YEARS ago asshole. Go find it yourself. For fuck sake. It was comedy value at the time but it was hardly worth putting in my scrap book. Fucking hell.
Copy Protection is one form of DRM, yes.. I haven't seen anyone on/. suggest otherwise. Bruce typically refers to "client side restrictions" instead of saying "DRM" is any case.
Meh, you suggested that I was somehow "typed into a corner" and so I needed to make up some reasoning for why the great Bruce Schneier might be wrong. I was simply explaining that I've always thought he was wrong on most everything he says that isn't just plain common knowledge of professionals in security fields. He has said that DRM is "in principle" just not a workable idea.. and he has commented on particular DRM schemes and why they are broken. His general stance is common knowledge.. it also happens to be naive. There are plenty of places where client-side restrictions *can* be effective - if the implementers are willing to shoulder certain costs - namely, changing the mechanism regularly. This is the kind of technique that encryption experts call "security through obscurity" or "mere obfuscation" and look down on as unworkable.. but it is workable - it's just not very cheap. His specific commentary on DRM solutions, when not completely obvious, is typically misguided. That is to say, whenever he tries to say something that is actually of any worth - he gets it wrong. This is my opinion. Yours may differ. But don't go saying that I'm lying to "get out" of a corner or something.
BTW - if you're just trolling me, congratulations.. I don't know why I keep responding to ACs. Just glutton for punishment I guess.
Huh? Bruce Schneier has shown numerous times that he's a complete dick who is on par with Dvorak in his trolling and whoring self promotion. This is the guy who said for years that strong encryption was the bee's knees of security and we need not concern ourselves with all those lowly details of implementation, etc. He had to make a public apology for his blasé attitude to matters of security outside his personal little kingdom of encryption when he was shown up for commenting so stupidly outside his field.. then weeks later he was once again claiming the rock star security guru title. I think a lot of people buy it simply because he has a nickel more common sense when it comes to security matters than the average bear but he's not infallible.
Which would still, in no way, stop the user from copying the film.. which is the point of the article. I don't know where you got the idea that they were just trying to stop people from getting more than the teaser.
That he would say their design is stupid suggests that he believes *some* design exists to do what they want, which is not stupid. His comment, if any, should have been "that's not possible anyway, so Adobe's design is as good as any".
Wow, so even Bruce Schneier is subject to the DRM double think now? What part of this is hard to understand? You have to give the viewer the key so it can decrypt the video stream and play it to the user.. if the user can see it, the user can record it. Game over. No amount of "encryption" can change the facts.
If they're lying about their success (and yes, even if the mission turns out to be a success, they're still lying by announcing it early) then what else are they lying about?
For all we know dozens of taikonauts have died or been wounded in the making of China's space program.
Maybe without the RIAA around there could be some legitimate structuring of the music industry. As a programmer, if I had to find all my own clients I'd probably barely get by too.. although there are plenty of one-man bands in this field who get along just fine, it's not for everyone.
Strangely, being a "non-profit" does not mean you are not allowed to, or even that you typically dont, make a profit. Being a non-profit simply means that the stated goal of the organization is something other than profits, and so the directors of the organization do not have to justify their decisions in terms of how much profit it makes for the organization. There's also different accounting regulations, like publicly declaring the assets and expenditures, etc.. and in exchange they get a tax break.
You think you've answered his question, but right now he's imagining something completely different to what you just said (and probably only read 10% of it anyway). Maybe I've just been posting on Slashdot for too long, but I can tell when someone just simply doesn't have the real world experience to understand what I want to tell them and when that is the case I try not to waste my breath.
finding programmers for open source positions is the problem.. and the reason why its so hard to find them is because open source programming jobs are so much more demanding. How demanding? About as difficult as getting commit access to one of the major free software projects (as that is what is typically involved). There's no "kids gloves" for new developers, you've got to get up to speed very quickly.
Well let me try to explain the psychology of people volunteer for open source projects.
Coding is fun. So don't think of it as accountants or doctors or professions.. think of it as, say, flying.. or even music. Do musicians get together and play music for free? Of course they do. What makes programming such a unique beast is that the fruits of programming are often productive, and that means that some people can find a paying job doing it. This has attracted people who want to learn just enough programming to make money and never get the fun aspect, certainly, but most programmers eventually learn the pure joy of programming.
The truly strange thing is the revolution. The grey-beards of our community put forward the notion that the work done by the amateurs, because it was out in the open, was superior to the junk cooked up by the whores in their corporate dens. And they had the audacity to suggest that maybe all software should be developed this way.
Slashdot Mirror
What's with the "next photo" shit?
The title of the article is "The 50 most significant moments of Internet history", the title of the Slashdot story? "Remembering 50 Years of (and Leading Up To) the Internet" .. whatever, the fuck, that means.
Disgrace.
Your company sounds like a bunch of idiots, get out now.
hint: stereotypes are not real.
The company won't pursue patents that are of little value. You'd have a pretty hard time convincing legal that they should waste their budget on filing stupid patents.
well, that's the only link I could find.. and frankly, I can't really tell if he's just faking ignorance to claim that he had some kind of epiphany that you too can share, if you just go buy his book. In fact, the apology is likely in said book which was considered hilarious by everyone in the security industry at the time. "Bruce Discovers Cryptography Can't Cure Cancer" and such. I guess you've gotta have someone to say the obvious things.
http://www.schneier.com/crypto-gram-0008.html
"I came to security from cryptography, and framed the problem with classical cryptography thinking. Most writings about security come from this perspective, and it can be summed up pretty easily: Security threats are to be avoided using preventive countermeasures.
For decades we have used this approach to computer security. We draw boxes around the different players and lines between them. We define different attackers -- eavesdroppers, impersonators, thieves -- and their capabilities. We use preventive countermeasures like encryption and access control to avoid different threats. If we can avoid the threats, we've won. If we can't, we've lost.
Imagine my surprise when I learned that the world doesn't work this way."
Imagine how unsurprised the rest of us were.
I don't have bookmarks from YEARS ago asshole. Go find it yourself. For fuck sake. It was comedy value at the time but it was hardly worth putting in my scrap book. Fucking hell.
Copy Protection is one form of DRM, yes.. I haven't seen anyone on /. suggest otherwise. Bruce typically refers to "client side restrictions" instead of saying "DRM" is any case.
Meh, you suggested that I was somehow "typed into a corner" and so I needed to make up some reasoning for why the great Bruce Schneier might be wrong. I was simply explaining that I've always thought he was wrong on most everything he says that isn't just plain common knowledge of professionals in security fields. He has said that DRM is "in principle" just not a workable idea.. and he has commented on particular DRM schemes and why they are broken. His general stance is common knowledge.. it also happens to be naive. There are plenty of places where client-side restrictions *can* be effective - if the implementers are willing to shoulder certain costs - namely, changing the mechanism regularly. This is the kind of technique that encryption experts call "security through obscurity" or "mere obfuscation" and look down on as unworkable.. but it is workable - it's just not very cheap. His specific commentary on DRM solutions, when not completely obvious, is typically misguided. That is to say, whenever he tries to say something that is actually of any worth - he gets it wrong. This is my opinion. Yours may differ. But don't go saying that I'm lying to "get out" of a corner or something.
BTW - if you're just trolling me, congratulations.. I don't know why I keep responding to ACs. Just glutton for punishment I guess.
Huh? Bruce Schneier has shown numerous times that he's a complete dick who is on par with Dvorak in his trolling and whoring self promotion. This is the guy who said for years that strong encryption was the bee's knees of security and we need not concern ourselves with all those lowly details of implementation, etc. He had to make a public apology for his blasé attitude to matters of security outside his personal little kingdom of encryption when he was shown up for commenting so stupidly outside his field.. then weeks later he was once again claiming the rock star security guru title. I think a lot of people buy it simply because he has a nickel more common sense when it comes to security matters than the average bear but he's not infallible.
Which would still, in no way, stop the user from copying the film.. which is the point of the article. I don't know where you got the idea that they were just trying to stop people from getting more than the teaser.
That he would say their design is stupid suggests that he believes *some* design exists to do what they want, which is not stupid. His comment, if any, should have been "that's not possible anyway, so Adobe's design is as good as any".
I know, I actually read the article. Strange to be sure.
Wow, so even Bruce Schneier is subject to the DRM double think now? What part of this is hard to understand? You have to give the viewer the key so it can decrypt the video stream and play it to the user.. if the user can see it, the user can record it. Game over. No amount of "encryption" can change the facts.
If they're lying about their success (and yes, even if the mission turns out to be a success, they're still lying by announcing it early) then what else are they lying about?
For all we know dozens of taikonauts have died or been wounded in the making of China's space program.
They wouldn't tell us if it was the case.
-----BEGIN PGP MESSAGE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (MingW32)
Comment: http://getfiregpg.org
jA0EAwMCC5cJiqEkfDxgyWPgUZ+OsxMR9nHOF7wkcbcbBwbC8gzNG5Gw2+9tclni
hha/xn9mqiEp71P/ClDS01IB/+ETEtmTIDwkRsiJbiI11Zv/rwcgZP4uetMYIYnr
M+Ky/2IbfkrUeHAbKt78AshSPnw=
=TCGC
-----END PGP MESSAGE-----
-----BEGIN PGP MESSAGE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (MingW32)
Comment: http://getfiregpg.org
jA0EAwMCXacBIDCUThJgyXFQDzdWuEqpI4BvRieVpjuNTnPDAOCzlqx30hXVktiL
QM6MXFSo7Tn+EsHbzh8iDsK8zb6MK113GjUkag3Vk2CdduKOOU2kUdYmqvTbQ214
jnjY4NBm073/zuHtQAdl+ij+fbk/2XargilBAStLDfQ8Cg==
=ODfL
-----END PGP MESSAGE-----
Maybe without the RIAA around there could be some legitimate structuring of the music industry. As a programmer, if I had to find all my own clients I'd probably barely get by too.. although there are plenty of one-man bands in this field who get along just fine, it's not for everyone.
The world could do with vastly less musicians who are in it for the money.
Strangely, being a "non-profit" does not mean you are not allowed to, or even that you typically dont, make a profit. Being a non-profit simply means that the stated goal of the organization is something other than profits, and so the directors of the organization do not have to justify their decisions in terms of how much profit it makes for the organization. There's also different accounting regulations, like publicly declaring the assets and expenditures, etc.. and in exchange they get a tax break.
-----BEGIN PGP MESSAGE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (MingW32)
Comment: http://getfiregpg.org/
jA0EAwMCuBk5bDLsjOVgyVRczylkXHQOoLrTZ4feTOyTgnhGn5NxdGTKQJiXOzt/
HsEG6/73TJGgkRzARmFdOCSIBd/w4+UCrF7zefX031zqAurOsYcLN+mF9ft6UBM1
O9tjvqs=
=Jmbx
-----END PGP MESSAGE-----
You think you've answered his question, but right now he's imagining something completely different to what you just said (and probably only read 10% of it anyway). Maybe I've just been posting on Slashdot for too long, but I can tell when someone just simply doesn't have the real world experience to understand what I want to tell them and when that is the case I try not to waste my breath.
finding programmers for open source positions is the problem.. and the reason why its so hard to find them is because open source programming jobs are so much more demanding. How demanding? About as difficult as getting commit access to one of the major free software projects (as that is what is typically involved). There's no "kids gloves" for new developers, you've got to get up to speed very quickly.
Well let me try to explain the psychology of people volunteer for open source projects.
Coding is fun. So don't think of it as accountants or doctors or professions.. think of it as, say, flying.. or even music. Do musicians get together and play music for free? Of course they do. What makes programming such a unique beast is that the fruits of programming are often productive, and that means that some people can find a paying job doing it. This has attracted people who want to learn just enough programming to make money and never get the fun aspect, certainly, but most programmers eventually learn the pure joy of programming.
The truly strange thing is the revolution. The grey-beards of our community put forward the notion that the work done by the amateurs, because it was out in the open, was superior to the junk cooked up by the whores in their corporate dens. And they had the audacity to suggest that maybe all software should be developed this way.