REAL web applications use a centralized (perhaps load balanced itself) database to store state, so it doesn't matter which server gets it. They associate your session data to you by IP address/cookie combination. Doing it strictly by IP address is a gaping security and functionality hole.
I've seen newer monitors with integrated USB hubs, that seems the slickest solution to me. IMO, better than the keyboard ones (And you don't need a USB keyboard. Down with USB keyboards and mice!).
I was wondering about the speed thing too - it's hard to get faster than blitting a bitmap onto the screen, especially since modern graphics hardware has umpty-jillion hardware optimizations.
The advantages of resolution-independent scaling, though are huge - and I can see "faster" meaning "renders faster than a scaling algorithim for a bitmap"
If you don't think it's reasonable to evaluate his past performance, what do you think IS a reasonable way to evaluate him? To be perfectly fair, we'd need to see his job description at Microsoft and compare that to what Microsoft did in the years he was there.
On the other hand, his job title was "Security Chief". To me, that means that security issues stop at his door, and blaming the windows codebase or the CEO is a smokescreen - it's his job to make the product secure. If he can't convince the CEO that's important, then what makes you think the can convince Bush about anything important?
I read the article about his departure from MS, it was full of the normal corporate bullshit. So if he was leaving over security issues, he didn't feel strongly enough to go public with them - which is probably politically wise, but still something I'd check off against him.
Considering that CDs (and DVDs) look like plastic, something that most people don't associate with being especially vulnerable to humidity and non-extreme temperature gradients, then maybe there should be some sort of publicising of the fact that your CDs and DVDs can rot? Kinda like this article? Or maybe it's NOT extreme temperature and humidity (since you don't know that and are just making it up), and it's something else, like manufacturing defects. Which should also be public knowledge. So where's the FUD?
You absolutely should be permitted to rent Titanic with hardcore sex scenes. Doing so will almost certainly get you sued, just like CleanFlix, and you won't have the help of public opinion on your side, though:P If, on the other hand, you create a DVD player that downloads in index from a central server, and replaces scenese matching that index with clips from other movies, then all is well
I agree that the rights of copyright holders are important - I don't feel especially strongly about CleanFlix, but then, translations are considered derived works too, and you need permission for them. ClearPlay is a totally different concept - there's not modification of the work going on. They don't provide you with a copy of it. You take a normal, director-approved copy of Titanic and watch it without the sex. The fact that someone provides a device and service that lets you skip the sex without manual intervention is irrelevent.
Let me try an analagy... CleanFlix is like editing functionality (into/out of) a program. You're clearly creating a derived work, so you're bound by the license.
ClearPlay is like distributing different makefiles for different configurations. There's no modification, someones just giving you a makefile so you can compile with the --porn switch without looking it up yourself.
I think all the code I write from now on will include a --porn switch:P
I've got a presario 1210 and have occasionaly had trouble with the monitoring, usually after a week or so of uptime - I never shut down, just hibernate - but it generally sorts itself out if I plug it into mains power. Could have been an OS thing, I guess...
trusted/restricted sites limits stuff by domain, what he's talking about is limiting it by the security information in the certificate on an activeX control.
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED actually ain't all that many rights. However, one of them is the right to control distribution. In our country, we've decided that public exhibition == distribution. Brigham Young showing it to the student body is a public exhibition. Therefore, they need permission from the copyright holder, who is perfectly entitled to demand any conditions he wants before he gives it.
In MY HOUSE, I can watch Shindlers List however the fuck I want and Lucas can't say boo. By paying him money for it, I already have all the rights I need.
Copyright owners are allowed to control the circumstances under which others are allowed to copy thier work (hence the name). Any other control is out the window, no matter how much Hollywood bitches. That is a (very small) subset of "control what happens to thier work".
I disagree - the major difference here between CleanFlix and ClearPlay is that they aren't actually providing edited content, they're allowing you to edit your content - I don't care about CleanFlix one way or another (again, this is a choice of whoever is buying the film), but I can see how they're on pretty shaky legal ground. ClearPlay is different - it's similar to having an index for a book that lets you know what chapters to skip. I see no issues with this, since the choice to use it rests soley with the user (contrary to what some people think, artists don't have some magic right to dictate how I view thier work). Maybe it is stupid, and someone who wants a service like this would be better off just not watching the movie - but so what? If someone wants a movie with the nudity gone, who gives a shit? They paid the money, they can watch whatever bits of it they want.
Artistic integrity is a smoke screen - while I believe it's certainly possible that some directors are pedantic enough to feel this affects them in some way (you wouldn't believe how silly some of the ones I've worked with got), they need a good smacking. Your creative control ended the moment I gave you (indirectly) money for my DVD. If that bothers you, don't sell your movie and insist on private screenings in controlled theatres
Well, naturally C# is going to translate best, as it was designed with that in mind - it took a while before any of the Java compilers for other languages were worth anything, too:P. VB.NET works fine too, of course. Anything that can spit out CLR should be able to make an assembly that can be loaded by any other.NET assembly, though.
You're confusing Java the language with Java the runtime environment. Java is an object oriented programming language. It is ALSO a bytecode oriented runtime environment, just like.NET. Mono is a port of the.NET runtime to linux -.NET is NOT a replacement for the windows API. Just as with Java,.NET can be targeted by multiple languages, although.NET takes it farther than Java does and makes it part of the design, whereas with Java it was kinda tacked on later.
C# is as platform independent as your compiler - in fact, there's a couple independent C# compilers already.
It's perfectly true that code written against the native.NET runtime may not run without changes on Mono, even when mono is mature - but that's not anything intrinsic in the language, that'd simply be a case of MS screwing with people.
I don't think.NET will kill Java anytime soon, but I think that it's perfectly strong in it's own right, it's language neutral assembly interface is potentially VERY powerful, and that it'd be an excellent replacement for Java apps in a lot of circumstances.
Well, I could do that, or I could modify my player to be able to skip them - being a geek, I prefer the second alternative. And that is what this is about - not allowing copyright holders to extend powers to entirely new realms using the DMCA. It's not weak - in fact, it's the strongest one of all - copyright is in NO WAY related to forcing people to watch trailers, and the extension of copyright to cover it should absolutely be nipped in the bud.
Well, I said "can", not "will". It's certainly possible to live without good credit, but it can make life very difficult, and if you're already in a position where you need the credit rating, a bad rating can certainly ruin you - for various values of ruin, of course. Some people may not consider having to move out of your house and give up the majority of your amenities to be ruined, others may.
Let me clarify my point about the difference between Equifax and E-Bay - I can, indeed call them up and say that, but my saying it won't be reflected in the report, it won't adveresly affect the person who gave me the bad rating, and, since the confirmation process in non-transparent, there's no way of me affecting it if the company simply says "Yes, so and so didn't pay us". I'm sure some people have had excellent success removing false or misleading entries from thier credit report, but I've never heard of them.
One of the other things that annoys me is how difficult they make it to view your own credit rating - yes, I know anyone who does a check on you has to provide you with a copy of it, but companies consistently make it difficult to actually obtain that.
As for the dividing line - when companies from a variety of other sectors, such as realitors, credit card agencies, and your phone company start evaluating your e-bay rating for your credit worthiness, then I'll agree that we're in need of legislation regarding the policies, and third party oversight into those policies. Until then, I'm perfectly comfortable with the way that the policy works - in fact, I believe it's superior to how credit reporting works in the "real" world.
The Rasphody(sp?) service lets you do exactly this - it's a pseudo-play on demand web radio, combined with the ability to burn tracks directly to CD for a buck a track. It's MPAA run/sponsored, so you get all the top 40 stuff (pretty much essential for this sort of service to get broad appeal) as well as some more obscure stuff.
They claim the CDs it burns are normal CDs - I don't know, I've only tried the preview service, which doesn't support the burning. All in all, it looks alot like the kind of service people say they'd support if it existed.
I'm not 100% certain, but it's my understanding that remixes are derivitive works and DJs are breaking the law when they release or perform them. I seem to recall the Canadian version of the RIAA cracking down on a bunch of house DJs for royaltys a couple years back.
It's actually a very important catagory - content providers want *complete* control over the content - just like in EULA's - including things far beyond the normal limits of copyright law. There's no "right" for them to force you to watch promotions - therefore, you have every right to figure out a way to skip it. The MPAA will no doubt argue that you have an implicit contract to watch the promotion, and that skipping it is stealing, and to that I say, piss the hell off.
This is something that pisses AI researchers off to no end. As soon as they manage to get computers to do something hard (facial recognition, chess) it's not considered AI anymore.
For what it's worth, there are robots that play soccer. It'd be pretty easy to make one that can beat human players, too - just give it a little air cannon to shoot the ball with. But, of course, that would be "cheating".
Ah, bullshit. The parent was overboard with the "Americans == Nazi's" remark, although I understand his frustration with the phrase, but your mindless defense lacks any sort of truth as well. We may not have legally annexed any territory since 1898, but we certainly have controlled it with military might, and American corporations have made money off of it. Look at our history in Central America, where US lives and money were spent keeping dicatators in power to ensure profits for Dole.
The world does okay WITHOUT America sometimes, too you know. And we hardly do anything out of altruism - for fucks sake, all those billions to kick the Taliban out of Afghanistan are payback for all the billions we spent helping them in in the first place.
Slashdot Mirror
REAL web applications use a centralized (perhaps load balanced itself) database to store state, so it doesn't matter which server gets it. They associate your session data to you by IP address/cookie combination. Doing it strictly by IP address is a gaping security and functionality hole.
CD's are not a floppy replacement. CD-Rs are, and they're still alot more expensive.
I've seen newer monitors with integrated USB hubs, that seems the slickest solution to me. IMO, better than the keyboard ones (And you don't need a USB keyboard. Down with USB keyboards and mice!).
Public library in my town has a Starbucks in it ;) And the one where I lived before had a coffee machine as well.
The advantages of resolution-independent scaling, though are huge - and I can see "faster" meaning "renders faster than a scaling algorithim for a bitmap"
On the other hand, his job title was "Security Chief". To me, that means that security issues stop at his door, and blaming the windows codebase or the CEO is a smokescreen - it's his job to make the product secure. If he can't convince the CEO that's important, then what makes you think the can convince Bush about anything important?
I read the article about his departure from MS, it was full of the normal corporate bullshit. So if he was leaving over security issues, he didn't feel strongly enough to go public with them - which is probably politically wise, but still something I'd check off against him.
Considering that CDs (and DVDs) look like plastic, something that most people don't associate with being especially vulnerable to humidity and non-extreme temperature gradients, then maybe there should be some sort of publicising of the fact that your CDs and DVDs can rot? Kinda like this article? Or maybe it's NOT extreme temperature and humidity (since you don't know that and are just making it up), and it's something else, like manufacturing defects. Which should also be public knowledge. So where's the FUD?
Notice the difference between "Upgrade because the new medium offers greater benefits" and "Re-buying all my content because the disc melted".
At the time, nobody thought it was artistic either. Nothing popular is ever artistic in it's lifetime.
I agree that the rights of copyright holders are important - I don't feel especially strongly about CleanFlix, but then, translations are considered derived works too, and you need permission for them. ClearPlay is a totally different concept - there's not modification of the work going on. They don't provide you with a copy of it. You take a normal, director-approved copy of Titanic and watch it without the sex. The fact that someone provides a device and service that lets you skip the sex without manual intervention is irrelevent.
Let me try an analagy... CleanFlix is like editing functionality (into/out of) a program. You're clearly creating a derived work, so you're bound by the license.
ClearPlay is like distributing different makefiles for different configurations. There's no modification, someones just giving you a makefile so you can compile with the --porn switch without looking it up yourself.
I think all the code I write from now on will include a --porn switch :P
I've got a presario 1210 and have occasionaly had trouble with the monitoring, usually after a week or so of uptime - I never shut down, just hibernate - but it generally sorts itself out if I plug it into mains power. Could have been an OS thing, I guess...
trusted/restricted sites limits stuff by domain, what he's talking about is limiting it by the security information in the certificate on an activeX control.
In MY HOUSE, I can watch Shindlers List however the fuck I want and Lucas can't say boo. By paying him money for it, I already have all the rights I need.
Copyright owners are allowed to control the circumstances under which others are allowed to copy thier work (hence the name). Any other control is out the window, no matter how much Hollywood bitches. That is a (very small) subset of "control what happens to thier work".
Artistic integrity is a smoke screen - while I believe it's certainly possible that some directors are pedantic enough to feel this affects them in some way (you wouldn't believe how silly some of the ones I've worked with got), they need a good smacking. Your creative control ended the moment I gave you (indirectly) money for my DVD. If that bothers you, don't sell your movie and insist on private screenings in controlled theatres
I have no idea why I never thought of this and I bow to your zen-like mastery of simplicity and elegence.
Well, naturally C# is going to translate best, as it was designed with that in mind - it took a while before any of the Java compilers for other languages were worth anything, too :P. VB .NET works fine too, of course. Anything that can spit out CLR should be able to make an assembly that can be loaded by any other .NET assembly, though.
C# is as platform independent as your compiler - in fact, there's a couple independent C# compilers already.
It's perfectly true that code written against the native .NET runtime may not run without changes on Mono, even when mono is mature - but that's not anything intrinsic in the language, that'd simply be a case of MS screwing with people.
I don't think .NET will kill Java anytime soon, but I think that it's perfectly strong in it's own right, it's language neutral assembly interface is potentially VERY powerful, and that it'd be an excellent replacement for Java apps in a lot of circumstances.
Well, I could do that, or I could modify my player to be able to skip them - being a geek, I prefer the second alternative. And that is what this is about - not allowing copyright holders to extend powers to entirely new realms using the DMCA. It's not weak - in fact, it's the strongest one of all - copyright is in NO WAY related to forcing people to watch trailers, and the extension of copyright to cover it should absolutely be nipped in the bud.
Let me clarify my point about the difference between Equifax and E-Bay - I can, indeed call them up and say that, but my saying it won't be reflected in the report, it won't adveresly affect the person who gave me the bad rating, and, since the confirmation process in non-transparent, there's no way of me affecting it if the company simply says "Yes, so and so didn't pay us". I'm sure some people have had excellent success removing false or misleading entries from thier credit report, but I've never heard of them .
One of the other things that annoys me is how difficult they make it to view your own credit rating - yes, I know anyone who does a check on you has to provide you with a copy of it, but companies consistently make it difficult to actually obtain that.
As for the dividing line - when companies from a variety of other sectors, such as realitors, credit card agencies, and your phone company start evaluating your e-bay rating for your credit worthiness, then I'll agree that we're in need of legislation regarding the policies, and third party oversight into those policies. Until then, I'm perfectly comfortable with the way that the policy works - in fact, I believe it's superior to how credit reporting works in the "real" world.
They claim the CDs it burns are normal CDs - I don't know, I've only tried the preview service, which doesn't support the burning. All in all, it looks alot like the kind of service people say they'd support if it existed.
It's worth taking a look at anyway.
I'm not 100% certain, but it's my understanding that remixes are derivitive works and DJs are breaking the law when they release or perform them. I seem to recall the Canadian version of the RIAA cracking down on a bunch of house DJs for royaltys a couple years back.
It's actually a very important catagory - content providers want *complete* control over the content - just like in EULA's - including things far beyond the normal limits of copyright law. There's no "right" for them to force you to watch promotions - therefore, you have every right to figure out a way to skip it. The MPAA will no doubt argue that you have an implicit contract to watch the promotion, and that skipping it is stealing, and to that I say, piss the hell off.
For what it's worth, there are robots that play soccer. It'd be pretty easy to make one that can beat human players, too - just give it a little air cannon to shoot the ball with. But, of course, that would be "cheating".
To be honest, it's probably more like 100's of millions, which makes it an even worse return on investment. That's not really the point of post.
The world does okay WITHOUT America sometimes, too you know. And we hardly do anything out of altruism - for fucks sake, all those billions to kick the Taliban out of Afghanistan are payback for all the billions we spent helping them in in the first place.