If one had to use an existing term, "backdoor" would be the closest. But it's really a totally new problem. The problem is that, when you click "install new patch", you no longer have any solid way for third-parties to double-check that the patch does only what Blizzard says it does, since every user could potentially get a different copy of the code. "Backdoor" implies that you're open to attack by someone at any point. That's not the case here, you're only open to attack when you click "install new patch". (and only then if the patch author, or an individual who works there, or anyone who's compromised their machines, wants to do something malicious. So there's a few qualifications. But given there WILL be other patch authors that try this new vector, and you WON'T be able to trust them nearly as much as you trust Blizzard, they're ultimately not very meaningful qualifications.)
Depends. Was the assignment more flexible, asking students to add, say, 500 words to one or more existing articles? If so, did the teacher point out that there are many many articles that need to be expanded, and admins are likely to leave you alone on those. (the decision to add or delete individual paragraphs is a non-admin one, unless the editors aren't able to work together and start an edit war... in which case, admins should still be largely uninvolved other than protecting the page for a number of days to give the participants time to discuss the issue)
Even if the assignment was to create a completely new article, the teacher could have pointed them to the most wanted articles list... any article created that has a ton of backlinks is less likely to be deleted just based on the number of backlinks, and is also more likely to be more obviously notable.
Heck, of the top 20 most viewed articles on Wikipedia, the following are missing from Citizendium:
#3: Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows
#4: Naruto
#5: Guitar Hero III
#9: Harry Potter
#10: Halo 3
#11: Transformers (film)
#12: Heroes (TV series)
#13: Vanessa Hudgens
#14: Luciano Pavarotti
#15: Bleach (manga)
#17: 50 Cent
#18: Sex positions
#19: World Wrestling Entertainment
#20: Sex (PC terms like homosexuality, AIDS, contraception, etc. are mentioned, but any sort of anatomy isn't there... possibly due to the family friendly policy)
Granted, popularity isn't the metric that academians should necessarily go by, but the avoidance of certain types of anatomy is a bit weird.
Brilliant. One thing you should add, however, is a willingness to pay a small fee for the permission. Surely that's reasonable.
Of course, if they decide they don't want to take your money because you're small potatoes, it's obviously ironic if they decide to pay a ton of money to lawyers, to sue people over equally small potatoes. But it'd be nice if there were a way to codify that irony into law. That is... unless there's a reasonable means for people to request and receive permission to use copyrighted works, then the RIAA can't sue those small potatoes either. Of course, current copyright law says that it's well within a copyright holder's right to withhold their work for any reason. However, copyright is hopefully shifting towards somewhat more permissive rules these days. And if it does shift that way, hopefully one of the first things to shift would be that if a copyright holder distributes tens of millions of copies of a work, that they can hardly expect the teeming masses to not want to at least minimally interact with that work, and that such a proposal might be reasonable for widely-distributed works.
W3D is just Gauntlet from a first-person perspective. As you said, "a plane that ran perpendicular to the monitor", but it was still a single plane.
But that, along with being first-person, made all the difference. Yes, W3D didn't have stairs or crossing paths, but the feel of the game was still much more like a proper 3D FPS than Gauntlet... at the time, it seemed FAR more immersive than third-person games.
Yup. Traditional education is only one way to go, there are definitely additional options. The growth of educational materials on the internet has made delight-led learning easier to do. There are also other self-learners throughout history, and currently out there on the internet, to learn from.
Well, hearing is believing as we always say. The sound becomes much more open and free flowing with a nice improvement in resolution. Dynamics are better and overall naturalness is improved. Here is a test for all you Silver Rock owners. Try removing the bakelite knobs and listen. You will be shocked by this!
W... T... F...
If being an audiophile means having the sort of mindset to remotely accept that as plausible, suddenly I have much less respect for the audiophiles I know.
It's simple: For economic reasons, many people complete their schooling outside the U.S., often where they grew up. But since many employers don't know whether a given school somewhere else in the world is reputable or not, many people get one last American degree, to "validate" their education elsewhere (both to U.S. employers, as well as anyone else who thinks American unis are the best). And the Master's degree is one of the shorter ones to get here.
So how long until the TSA is collecting so much data at airports that other law-enforcement agencies start looking through their database? When TSA screeners rifle through your luggage, is any of that admissible in court? If they're secretly watching what you're reading, even outside of checkpoints, is that admissible too?
Is it worth all this invasion of privacy, for events that happen exceedingly rarely? And if terrorists target a bus in the U.S., will we start having these checkpoints everywhere?
If they're filing false take-down notices, then CSEministry committed perjury, which means they can be fined and/or imprisoned for up to five years.
Begging YouTube to put the videos up won't do much, because it does nothing to change their liability under the law. Filing a counter-notification will get YouTube to put the videos back up, since that gets YouTube off the hook, and you don't have to go to court to do that.
It's not YouTube's job to decide whether a video is covered by fair use or not. It's 1) the uploader's job to figure out whether they want to assert under the penalty of perjury that it falls under fair use, (eg. they should consult a lawyer first) and 2) if CSEministry continues to assert that it's not fair use, then CSEministry will need to take the uploader to court, and then a judge will decide if it's fair use or not
Windows Update files are signed by Microsoft, so a potential hacker would have to first steal the private key from Microsoft before they could send out malicious updates.
Fortunately, there are taggers out there (like the GPL'd EasyTag) that can scrape the information from the filename and put it in the tags (and others can do much more).
When the Total Information Awareness program (the one with the odd all-seeing-eye logo) was closed down, people were happy... but it came back, and now we're to believe it's permanently killed this time?
The previous poster wasn't arguing that NO health metrics should be used, rather they were arguing that BMI probably isn't the best one. Which is entirely true. BMI makes assumptions about the amount of muscle and bone in someone's body. Since the percentage of muscle can vary widely, that's obviously not the best assumption to make. There are better ways to measure only the amount of fat in someone's body that resolves that problem, though they require more specialized equipment.
TLS/SSL's main design goal was to avoid man in the middle attacks. While perfect security is impossible, TLS/SSL definitely makes MITM difficult enough that ISP's can't possibly think about routinely inspecting the contents of an SSL session. (unless end users decide to install a malicious root certificate... but only one largish organization that I know has tried that, and they stopped, and if an ISP tried to set something like that up, they'd probably be sued, as well as having their IP range blacklisted by financial organizations).
It doesn't matter if ISPs record the entire conversation. The initial key exchange is done under asymmetric encryption, so it's not possible for an outside sniffer to get the symmetric key (without brute-forcing or otherwise taking a long long time to break the asymmetric keys).
Exactly. The headline is misleading... the FCC isn't concerned about crackers being able to take control of other people's machines, they're concerned about normal people being able to fully modify their own equipment.
It's just a single issue with the frequency restrictions. If software could be open-source, and end users were able to configure everything but that one little thing, it wouldn't be as big of a problem. But it's an inherent part of open source that anything can be modified. OSS prevents the FCC from having any pre-emptive control, and that's what they see as the problem.
I don't think there's a realistic chance of "average Americans" becoming more informed about these details. I have a number of friends who are software developers, who have almost what DRM is. DRM has been reported on by mainstream press (~300ghits at cnn.com, ~500ghits at foxnews.com, etc), and DRM is something that people sometimes encounter in their daily lives, yet it's still not widely understood.
Trying to explain the details of why TCP's end-to-end principle is good, why it's helped jump-start things like YouTube, Google, etc, that the most innovative ideas haven't necessarily come from large corporations, that last-mile telecom companies have a natural monopoly and they've historically had important but subtle gaps in regulation by the U.S. government, and balancing all that against libertarian principles... it's impossible to expect most people to grok all of that.
I'd prefer to be able to dual-boot directly into Windows or Linux (for when I want the fastest performance in Linux, and give it 100% of the RAM), and also be able to run that Linux installation inside of Windows. However, this requires the VM to support booting off a separate partition, and apparently VirtualBox doesn't support that. (yes, booting the same Linux setup under two very different sets of "hardware" has its challenges, but it is possible)
that can hardly be the problem as most Linux apps are OSS and thus portable to Windows
True. However, if you work with a large number of open source apps, or even just a lot of Perl modules... Usually these were designed from the start to work under Linux. Yes, the more popular ones compile under both, but sometimes it's a pain, and the less popular ones simply won't compile without extra work.
Also, I just prefer Unix streams/forking/filesystem semantics over Windows. And sure, I use Cygwin/MinGW/etc. a lot, but I'd still take Debian/Ubuntu packages over them any day.
If I have to maintain two separate OS's, I'd rather have the outermost OS (host OS) be the one that has the best drivers, the most hardware support. Also, since very few virtualization solutions work with 3D gaming (and even the one that does, it still has large overheads I think), you want your host OS to be the one that has all the games. So, for my purposes anyway, I need Windows as the host OS, and Linux as the guest OS. Xen doesn't run under Windows, only Linux. So that leaves me with either commercial virtualization software, or a few open source projects that haven't matured yet (eg. coLinux).
(granted, having Windows on the outside makes your machine much less secure than the other way around, but personally, I'm more interested in having all my peripherals work the day they're released, and having all my games available)
Slashdot Mirror
If one had to use an existing term, "backdoor" would be the closest. But it's really a totally new problem. The problem is that, when you click "install new patch", you no longer have any solid way for third-parties to double-check that the patch does only what Blizzard says it does, since every user could potentially get a different copy of the code. "Backdoor" implies that you're open to attack by someone at any point. That's not the case here, you're only open to attack when you click "install new patch". (and only then if the patch author, or an individual who works there, or anyone who's compromised their machines, wants to do something malicious. So there's a few qualifications. But given there WILL be other patch authors that try this new vector, and you WON'T be able to trust them nearly as much as you trust Blizzard, they're ultimately not very meaningful qualifications.)
Depends. Was the assignment more flexible, asking students to add, say, 500 words to one or more existing articles? If so, did the teacher point out that there are many many articles that need to be expanded, and admins are likely to leave you alone on those. (the decision to add or delete individual paragraphs is a non-admin one, unless the editors aren't able to work together and start an edit war... in which case, admins should still be largely uninvolved other than protecting the page for a number of days to give the participants time to discuss the issue)
Even if the assignment was to create a completely new article, the teacher could have pointed them to the most wanted articles list... any article created that has a ton of backlinks is less likely to be deleted just based on the number of backlinks, and is also more likely to be more obviously notable.
- #3: Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows
- #4: Naruto
- #5: Guitar Hero III
- #9: Harry Potter
- #10: Halo 3
- #11: Transformers (film)
- #12: Heroes (TV series)
- #13: Vanessa Hudgens
- #14: Luciano Pavarotti
- #15: Bleach (manga)
- #17: 50 Cent
- #18: Sex positions
- #19: World Wrestling Entertainment
- #20: Sex (PC terms like homosexuality, AIDS, contraception, etc. are mentioned, but any sort of anatomy isn't there... possibly due to the family friendly policy)
Granted, popularity isn't the metric that academians should necessarily go by, but the avoidance of certain types of anatomy is a bit weird.Brilliant. One thing you should add, however, is a willingness to pay a small fee for the permission. Surely that's reasonable.
Of course, if they decide they don't want to take your money because you're small potatoes, it's obviously ironic if they decide to pay a ton of money to lawyers, to sue people over equally small potatoes. But it'd be nice if there were a way to codify that irony into law. That is... unless there's a reasonable means for people to request and receive permission to use copyrighted works, then the RIAA can't sue those small potatoes either. Of course, current copyright law says that it's well within a copyright holder's right to withhold their work for any reason. However, copyright is hopefully shifting towards somewhat more permissive rules these days. And if it does shift that way, hopefully one of the first things to shift would be that if a copyright holder distributes tens of millions of copies of a work, that they can hardly expect the teeming masses to not want to at least minimally interact with that work, and that such a proposal might be reasonable for widely-distributed works.
But that, along with being first-person, made all the difference. Yes, W3D didn't have stairs or crossing paths, but the feel of the game was still much more like a proper 3D FPS than Gauntlet... at the time, it seemed FAR more immersive than third-person games.
Yup. Traditional education is only one way to go, there are definitely additional options. The growth of educational materials on the internet has made delight-led learning easier to do. There are also other self-learners throughout history, and currently out there on the internet, to learn from.
If being an audiophile means having the sort of mindset to remotely accept that as plausible, suddenly I have much less respect for the audiophiles I know.
It's simple: For economic reasons, many people complete their schooling outside the U.S., often where they grew up. But since many employers don't know whether a given school somewhere else in the world is reputable or not, many people get one last American degree, to "validate" their education elsewhere (both to U.S. employers, as well as anyone else who thinks American unis are the best). And the Master's degree is one of the shorter ones to get here.
So how long until the TSA is collecting so much data at airports that other law-enforcement agencies start looking through their database? When TSA screeners rifle through your luggage, is any of that admissible in court? If they're secretly watching what you're reading, even outside of checkpoints, is that admissible too?
Is it worth all this invasion of privacy, for events that happen exceedingly rarely? And if terrorists target a bus in the U.S., will we start having these checkpoints everywhere?
I heard cannabis brownies were the way to go.
Windows Update files are signed by Microsoft, so a potential hacker would have to first steal the private key from Microsoft before they could send out malicious updates.
It's "PC Load Letter".
Fortunately, there are taggers out there (like the GPL'd EasyTag) that can scrape the information from the filename and put it in the tags (and others can do much more).
When the Total Information Awareness program (the one with the odd all-seeing-eye logo) was closed down, people were happy... but it came back, and now we're to believe it's permanently killed this time?
If so, then they'd block Walmart and Ford too.
The previous poster wasn't arguing that NO health metrics should be used, rather they were arguing that BMI probably isn't the best one. Which is entirely true. BMI makes assumptions about the amount of muscle and bone in someone's body. Since the percentage of muscle can vary widely, that's obviously not the best assumption to make. There are better ways to measure only the amount of fat in someone's body that resolves that problem, though they require more specialized equipment.
TLS/SSL's main design goal was to avoid man in the middle attacks. While perfect security is impossible, TLS/SSL definitely makes MITM difficult enough that ISP's can't possibly think about routinely inspecting the contents of an SSL session. (unless end users decide to install a malicious root certificate... but only one largish organization that I know has tried that, and they stopped, and if an ISP tried to set something like that up, they'd probably be sued, as well as having their IP range blacklisted by financial organizations).
It doesn't matter if ISPs record the entire conversation. The initial key exchange is done under asymmetric encryption, so it's not possible for an outside sniffer to get the symmetric key (without brute-forcing or otherwise taking a long long time to break the asymmetric keys).
Exactly. The headline is misleading... the FCC isn't concerned about crackers being able to take control of other people's machines, they're concerned about normal people being able to fully modify their own equipment.
It's just a single issue with the frequency restrictions. If software could be open-source, and end users were able to configure everything but that one little thing, it wouldn't be as big of a problem. But it's an inherent part of open source that anything can be modified. OSS prevents the FCC from having any pre-emptive control, and that's what they see as the problem.
I don't think there's a realistic chance of "average Americans" becoming more informed about these details. I have a number of friends who are software developers, who have almost what DRM is. DRM has been reported on by mainstream press (~300ghits at cnn.com, ~500ghits at foxnews.com, etc), and DRM is something that people sometimes encounter in their daily lives, yet it's still not widely understood.
Trying to explain the details of why TCP's end-to-end principle is good, why it's helped jump-start things like YouTube, Google, etc, that the most innovative ideas haven't necessarily come from large corporations, that last-mile telecom companies have a natural monopoly and they've historically had important but subtle gaps in regulation by the U.S. government, and balancing all that against libertarian principles... it's impossible to expect most people to grok all of that.
I'd prefer to be able to dual-boot directly into Windows or Linux (for when I want the fastest performance in Linux, and give it 100% of the RAM), and also be able to run that Linux installation inside of Windows. However, this requires the VM to support booting off a separate partition, and apparently VirtualBox doesn't support that. (yes, booting the same Linux setup under two very different sets of "hardware" has its challenges, but it is possible)
True. However, if you work with a large number of open source apps, or even just a lot of Perl modules... Usually these were designed from the start to work under Linux. Yes, the more popular ones compile under both, but sometimes it's a pain, and the less popular ones simply won't compile without extra work.
Also, I just prefer Unix streams/forking/filesystem semantics over Windows. And sure, I use Cygwin/MinGW/etc. a lot, but I'd still take Debian/Ubuntu packages over them any day.
If I have to maintain two separate OS's, I'd rather have the outermost OS (host OS) be the one that has the best drivers, the most hardware support. Also, since very few virtualization solutions work with 3D gaming (and even the one that does, it still has large overheads I think), you want your host OS to be the one that has all the games. So, for my purposes anyway, I need Windows as the host OS, and Linux as the guest OS. Xen doesn't run under Windows, only Linux. So that leaves me with either commercial virtualization software, or a few open source projects that haven't matured yet (eg. coLinux).
(granted, having Windows on the outside makes your machine much less secure than the other way around, but personally, I'm more interested in having all my peripherals work the day they're released, and having all my games available)