To the best of my knowledge that's actually a perfectly legal form of e-mail address and how it's handled is completely up to the final mail server. A good idea however, probably not.
The camps were a shameful chapter in US history, however you are wrong in two points. To start with, while I'm sure some people died in those camps, to the best of my knowledge the number was not significant and those deaths were neither from conscious design nor neglect. The American government has committed genocide, but the camps weren't when they did it(if the Turks killing the Armenians on forced marches counts as genocide, and I think it does, so does the trail of tears).
In addition, you're also wrong about who was imprisoned, they didn't imprison people of German descent only Japanese. Part of this was undoubtedly racism, but as my history teacher once said, if you look at the population statistics of imprisoning the Germans would have left everyone else having to move to one state while the other 49 got fenced off.
There's a difference between paying people in perpetuum and paying them at all. I know very few people who aren't involved directly in selling creative works who believe that copyright should last anywhere near the term it currently does, to be honest as technology has made publishing and distribution easier copyright periods should be decreasing not increasing.
They have manufacturing plants, aren't Microsoft, and are European so the EU will leave Microsoft alone about any whiff of vertical market so long as they don't buy them outright, the expertise to design hardware is icing on the cake and I doubt that Microsoft has any real desire to hire their Symbian or Meego teams for Windows.
Because Nokia needed an infusion of cash to survive and because this isn't "Put Windows Phone on your handsets" it's "Build us some handsets for Windows phone" which is much more expensive.
As opposed to the previous CEO who presumably owned an awful lot of Nokia stock, but at the same time seemed to spend his entire time on the job increasing the share price of Apple.
Let's get this straight, the iPhone wouldn't be half the success it is if there had been any real competition. It would still have done well because it was a good phone but it did so fantastically well because there was not a single smart phone on the market which didn't suck. Nokia should have had that market, they had the brand reputation, they had the facilities and the talent to do it. Unfortunately every single thing they've made that's in any way complex has sucked, Symbian sucks, MeeGo sucks and is pretty much dead now that Android is on the scene. The big seller of open source for commercial enterprise is free developers. How many people do you think are going to be doing unpaid development on MeeGo rather than Android?
Microsoft needs someone to make hardware for them, and Nokia has the facilities to produce it, and if they haven't all already quit or been sacked they have the expertise to design it to. Yes, in the end Nokia will probably just end up as an independent division of Microsoft who can make hardware without pissing off the regulators, but the alternative is far worse.
Actually it does come with professional, I have professional and I have XP-mode, XP-mode is actually why I bought professional as opposed to home in the first place.
Always a funny argument that one. Corporate America is capable of corrupting governments and grand conspiracies of all types(most of which are probably true), but at the same time they spend years and billions of dollars inventing things that anyone could knock up in a few months if only they tried.
Think is though it's not an increasingly smaller audience. Yes more and more people have kindles and iPads and whatnot, but the number of people who want to feel superior to others or who want to experience a college lifestyle they never had(and which for the most part doesn't exist) is, if anything, increasing.
Tell me truthfully that you've never watched one of those cheesy college movies where everyone is running around getting drunk and laid every few minutes and not had a small moment wishing your college experience had been like that even though you know that no one's college experience is like that. That's what they're selling, the coffee only has to be drinkable.
These are not "coffee" shops, they're "indie" coffee shops. Like "indie" everything they're not about the product they sell they're about the product they don't sell. If they tell people they can't do things there, their preferred customer base will want to come more.
That's not to say that starbucks coffee isn't crap, but most coffee in the US is crap, and I've been to more than a few of those sorts of places. They're selling ambiance and exclusivity with a side of coffee.
WebM is not open, nor standard, at least not present, it may, at least at the moment be "free" for a certain value of free, but it's neither standard nor open, Google can change it anyway they like.
Google were dead keen on it up until they bought WebM and got their own proprietary codec to push. Pretty much every youtube video is still encoded in it. Mozilla aren't keen on it because they can't distribute it legally which makes it awkward for them. If they had any sense they'd offload stuff like codec rendering to the OS instead of wasting their time rolling their own, and we wouldn't need a plugin to make this work.
Even if everything google says about WebM being only affected by google patents is true and even if it's actually superior to H.264, both of which are pretty big ifs. It's not an open standard, and all you're really doing is replacing MPEG-LA with google.
The food industry is not an innovation industry, it's a manufacturing industry. You might see clever recipes, but what you're paying for is how well they're cooked. You don't need legal protection for talent, only for lack of it, and the fashion industry doesn't require protection because they're business model involves last seasons stuff being worthless anyway so they don't care if anyone copies it or not.
The purpose of IP laws isn't specifically to foster innovation and you're right, innovation occurred before IP laws.
The purpose of IP laws is to foster the sharing of information. In the old days, if you had a really clever idea, you kept it to yourself because that's how you could make money out of it. Sure sometimes really clever people could work out what you'd done, but that's why you formed a guild and beat the crap out of anyone operating in your sector who wasn't a member.
The problem with this of course is that important information doesn't always get to the right people. A guild is highly unlikely to contain many experts from other fields who might take an idea in a new direction and if the only people who know something die it can be lost. See Damascus steel for an example. IP law basically says to innovators, you can have all the benefits you had when you kept everything secret while at the same time letting everyone know what it is you discovered so that it can be built upon and preserved.
If we eliminated IP law, innovation would continue, but information sharing would largely disappear. New discoveries would simply be kept secret.
That's not to say that the current IP system isn't broken and isn't stifling innovation. The system is so complex and so uncertain at the moment that it's pretty much impossible to tell whether something you're developing is covered by a patent or not, or whether there's prior art or not, or whether either of those things actually matters. The system desperately needs to be reformed, but eliminating it won't make information free, it'll just make it secret.
They are usually bundled simultaneously, mostly because if you're doing the overhead for one the other is essentially free, but they are different components, one of which works, the other of which isn't worth piss all.
Technically a self signed certificate could be considered encryption only.
The study determined there were other causes than just driver error(the mat and pedal issues they fined Toyota for last week) so there actually is a problem with this make.
Toyota is or at least was the most popular make of car in the world, so even if there weren't other issues at work, proportion would mean more Toyota issues than others. When you slice out all the car models whose intended market is people who enjoy driving and are at least theoretically less likely not to know how to do it, I'd say this proportion is even higher.
People don't like taking responsibility for being stupid. When they hear people talking about problems with Toyotas, and especially when Toyota got fined they'd blame everything on it.
In essence, Toyota did have problems, but that doesn't mean that some Toyota drivers didn't make mistakes and that some of those drivers didn't try to avoid responsibility.
I think it's more like renting out rooms to people for cash and then giving them a discount if you find human blood on the walls when they're done. You didn't actually tell them to break the law, but you encouraged it and profited by it.
Note I am not saying copyright infringement is the same as murder.
I'm referring to endpoints in terms of communication. SSL doesn't, in and of itself, provide any guarantee that the guy you're talking to is the guy you think it is. What it guarantees that, at least in theory, only you and the guy you are talking to can understand your conversation. In practice, unless your using an older debian generated certificate, I don't know of any evidence that this is not the case.
Now Certificates which are based on SSL can, again in theory, positively identify the guy on the other end(that's signing with a private key as opposed to encryption). The issue with that of course is the same issue that all PKI infrastructure has. You have to trust the person telling you what the public key is and who it belongs to.
Twitter and Facebook actually have more impact than you'd think.
To start with, it's not in anyway abnormal for people to visit Facebook all the time, or for facebook to contain all sorts of random inanity, making it a perfect way for people to communicate covertly. The signal is simply lost in the noise. Everyone goes to these sites and so it's not at all unusual for any given individual to be doing it. Some forum, or blog, or chat room specializing in this sort of thing on the other hand would stick out like a sore thumb to anyone looking.
The other important thing is that it spreads information to the outside world. Millions of people are on these sites, so even a small group of individuals can spread information about what's really going on to most of the world.
Essentially yes, Facebook and Twitter aren't doing anything that wasn't possible before, but they are doing it with orders of magnitude more people. I don't like either site particularly much because I don't care about the details of other peoples lives very much, nor do I particularly want to share the details of mine, but to say that connecting millions of people all over the world to the same core data network isn't a fairly big achievement and doesn't change the world is pretty naive.
SSL protects you from people other than the endpoints from viewing your data, that's all it does. If you think it's saving you from MITM you've never dealt with certificate authorities.
Slashdot Mirror
To the best of my knowledge that's actually a perfectly legal form of e-mail address and how it's handled is completely up to the final mail server. A good idea however, probably not.
The camps were a shameful chapter in US history, however you are wrong in two points. To start with, while I'm sure some people died in those camps, to the best of my knowledge the number was not significant and those deaths were neither from conscious design nor neglect. The American government has committed genocide, but the camps weren't when they did it(if the Turks killing the Armenians on forced marches counts as genocide, and I think it does, so does the trail of tears).
In addition, you're also wrong about who was imprisoned, they didn't imprison people of German descent only Japanese. Part of this was undoubtedly racism, but as my history teacher once said, if you look at the population statistics of imprisoning the Germans would have left everyone else having to move to one state while the other 49 got fenced off.
Any halfway decent lawyer could get this clear on the grounds of parody anyway.
There's a difference between paying people in perpetuum and paying them at all. I know very few people who aren't involved directly in selling creative works who believe that copyright should last anywhere near the term it currently does, to be honest as technology has made publishing and distribution easier copyright periods should be decreasing not increasing.
They have manufacturing plants, aren't Microsoft, and are European so the EU will leave Microsoft alone about any whiff of vertical market so long as they don't buy them outright, the expertise to design hardware is icing on the cake and I doubt that Microsoft has any real desire to hire their Symbian or Meego teams for Windows.
Because Nokia needed an infusion of cash to survive and because this isn't "Put Windows Phone on your handsets" it's "Build us some handsets for Windows phone" which is much more expensive.
As opposed to the previous CEO who presumably owned an awful lot of Nokia stock, but at the same time seemed to spend his entire time on the job increasing the share price of Apple.
Let's get this straight, the iPhone wouldn't be half the success it is if there had been any real competition. It would still have done well because it was a good phone but it did so fantastically well because there was not a single smart phone on the market which didn't suck. Nokia should have had that market, they had the brand reputation, they had the facilities and the talent to do it. Unfortunately every single thing they've made that's in any way complex has sucked, Symbian sucks, MeeGo sucks and is pretty much dead now that Android is on the scene. The big seller of open source for commercial enterprise is free developers. How many people do you think are going to be doing unpaid development on MeeGo rather than Android?
Microsoft needs someone to make hardware for them, and Nokia has the facilities to produce it, and if they haven't all already quit or been sacked they have the expertise to design it to. Yes, in the end Nokia will probably just end up as an independent division of Microsoft who can make hardware without pissing off the regulators, but the alternative is far worse.
Actually it does come with professional, I have professional and I have XP-mode, XP-mode is actually why I bought professional as opposed to home in the first place.
Always a funny argument that one. Corporate America is capable of corrupting governments and grand conspiracies of all types(most of which are probably true), but at the same time they spend years and billions of dollars inventing things that anyone could knock up in a few months if only they tried.
Think is though it's not an increasingly smaller audience. Yes more and more people have kindles and iPads and whatnot, but the number of people who want to feel superior to others or who want to experience a college lifestyle they never had(and which for the most part doesn't exist) is, if anything, increasing.
Tell me truthfully that you've never watched one of those cheesy college movies where everyone is running around getting drunk and laid every few minutes and not had a small moment wishing your college experience had been like that even though you know that no one's college experience is like that. That's what they're selling, the coffee only has to be drinkable.
The code is, the standard is not. Open Standards are a lot more important than open source.
These are not "coffee" shops, they're "indie" coffee shops. Like "indie" everything they're not about the product they sell they're about the product they don't sell. If they tell people they can't do things there, their preferred customer base will want to come more.
That's not to say that starbucks coffee isn't crap, but most coffee in the US is crap, and I've been to more than a few of those sorts of places. They're selling ambiance and exclusivity with a side of coffee.
WebM is not open, nor standard, at least not present, it may, at least at the moment be "free" for a certain value of free, but it's neither standard nor open, Google can change it anyway they like.
That's why they don't build a plugin, the reason they won't let you use your OS plugin is because they're stupid.
Google were dead keen on it up until they bought WebM and got their own proprietary codec to push. Pretty much every youtube video is still encoded in it. Mozilla aren't keen on it because they can't distribute it legally which makes it awkward for them. If they had any sense they'd offload stuff like codec rendering to the OS instead of wasting their time rolling their own, and we wouldn't need a plugin to make this work.
Even if everything google says about WebM being only affected by google patents is true and even if it's actually superior to H.264, both of which are pretty big ifs. It's not an open standard, and all you're really doing is replacing MPEG-LA with google.
The food industry is not an innovation industry, it's a manufacturing industry. You might see clever recipes, but what you're paying for is how well they're cooked. You don't need legal protection for talent, only for lack of it, and the fashion industry doesn't require protection because they're business model involves last seasons stuff being worthless anyway so they don't care if anyone copies it or not.
The purpose of IP laws isn't specifically to foster innovation and you're right, innovation occurred before IP laws.
The purpose of IP laws is to foster the sharing of information. In the old days, if you had a really clever idea, you kept it to yourself because that's how you could make money out of it. Sure sometimes really clever people could work out what you'd done, but that's why you formed a guild and beat the crap out of anyone operating in your sector who wasn't a member.
The problem with this of course is that important information doesn't always get to the right people. A guild is highly unlikely to contain many experts from other fields who might take an idea in a new direction and if the only people who know something die it can be lost. See Damascus steel for an example. IP law basically says to innovators, you can have all the benefits you had when you kept everything secret while at the same time letting everyone know what it is you discovered so that it can be built upon and preserved.
If we eliminated IP law, innovation would continue, but information sharing would largely disappear. New discoveries would simply be kept secret.
That's not to say that the current IP system isn't broken and isn't stifling innovation. The system is so complex and so uncertain at the moment that it's pretty much impossible to tell whether something you're developing is covered by a patent or not, or whether there's prior art or not, or whether either of those things actually matters. The system desperately needs to be reformed, but eliminating it won't make information free, it'll just make it secret.
They are usually bundled simultaneously, mostly because if you're doing the overhead for one the other is essentially free, but they are different components, one of which works, the other of which isn't worth piss all.
Technically a self signed certificate could be considered encryption only.
Well, a few things.
In essence, Toyota did have problems, but that doesn't mean that some Toyota drivers didn't make mistakes and that some of those drivers didn't try to avoid responsibility.
I think it's more like renting out rooms to people for cash and then giving them a discount if you find human blood on the walls when they're done. You didn't actually tell them to break the law, but you encouraged it and profited by it.
Note I am not saying copyright infringement is the same as murder.
I'm referring to endpoints in terms of communication. SSL doesn't, in and of itself, provide any guarantee that the guy you're talking to is the guy you think it is. What it guarantees that, at least in theory, only you and the guy you are talking to can understand your conversation. In practice, unless your using an older debian generated certificate, I don't know of any evidence that this is not the case.
Now Certificates which are based on SSL can, again in theory, positively identify the guy on the other end(that's signing with a private key as opposed to encryption). The issue with that of course is the same issue that all PKI infrastructure has. You have to trust the person telling you what the public key is and who it belongs to.
it doesn't take an awful lot of jerks to screw up a mesh. It just takes a few, and even here in Oz teenagers are bored and up for doing stupid things.
No, a MITM is someone else pretending to be one of the endpoints.
Twitter and Facebook actually have more impact than you'd think.
To start with, it's not in anyway abnormal for people to visit Facebook all the time, or for facebook to contain all sorts of random inanity, making it a perfect way for people to communicate covertly. The signal is simply lost in the noise. Everyone goes to these sites and so it's not at all unusual for any given individual to be doing it. Some forum, or blog, or chat room specializing in this sort of thing on the other hand would stick out like a sore thumb to anyone looking.
The other important thing is that it spreads information to the outside world. Millions of people are on these sites, so even a small group of individuals can spread information about what's really going on to most of the world.
Essentially yes, Facebook and Twitter aren't doing anything that wasn't possible before, but they are doing it with orders of magnitude more people. I don't like either site particularly much because I don't care about the details of other peoples lives very much, nor do I particularly want to share the details of mine, but to say that connecting millions of people all over the world to the same core data network isn't a fairly big achievement and doesn't change the world is pretty naive.
SSL protects you from people other than the endpoints from viewing your data, that's all it does. If you think it's saving you from MITM you've never dealt with certificate authorities.