I don't deny that bandwidth/capacity/etc is a finite resource...but you have to admit when a company says "unlimited", you think, "wow! I can use as much as I want!"
Back in the bad old days of broadband, they advertised "UNLIMITED!" without restrictions and with no mouse print.
Some companies still do this, but then they hide the language in their 12 page TOS.
For reference
I wish companies would stop using the word "unlimited" when they really mean "limited". Same thing goes toward coupons that say "No limitations!" but when you read the fine print it says, "Not for gift cards, furniture, clothes, anything we sell, really."
I guess that does make the difference: physical manpower and cost verses a computer button.
It's the same argument I here for allowing the police to put a GPS device in your car. Yeah, they could spend the manpower to follow your car but they make it cheaper by just putting the GPS device on your car.
I've seen various jurisdictions on both sides of the fence. At some point, we as a people are going to be okay with zero privacy. I hope this point is after I'm dead.
The biggest problem with this is that streaming allows for content publishers to control distribution (more or less). Allowing an entire work to be stored on a hard drive just begs to be ripped and stored permanently.
I hate the MPAA as much as the next guy. Just saying that even if the bandwidth was there, no way that the powers that hold the keys would allow it.
The point of Zoosh seems to be to create a system using nothing but what everybody already has. I'm sure the software is still being developed but I actually have hopes for this. As another user already mentioned, RFIDs are hardly secure since they can be scanned at quite a large distance away.
I would assume Zoosh uses some sort of trigger. E.g. the phone doesn't emit any sound until you say, "Use my phone to start the transaction."
Additionally, I assume that the company is smart enough to figure out the right frequencies so that you don't get that annoying modem sound that you complained about. Furthermore, I assume that volume would also be considered so that someone would literally have to be next to you to get the entire data stream.
As for security, I imagine that something similar to a one-time use credit card number would be used. For example, the cash register transfers the data to your phone giving you a certificate along with the total purchase price. You select your credit card and then encrypt it with the cert along with a one-time hash. Then the store profits.
It's rare, but I sometimes wished I could be at the trial, but because of work, I can't. You're absolutely right that we need to summarize more. However, I think we can do that while still have access to the full record.
I think of it like a library index file. You get the summary, but if you want, they can get the whole book for you.
On the one hand, you have a better record of testimony. Written transcripts only pick up words, not actions or tone of testimony. Video picks up a lot more.
OTOH, video can be deceiving. People tend to believe video because they are seeing it. Thus, if the camera angles weren't right, it might persuade them one way over another.
The Constitution protects you from the government, not to a private entity. If you sign a contract, then you agree to it.
The best way for a doctor or dentist to prevent bad exposure is to make clear that they want to fix anything if you have a bad experience. Always give the merchant a chance to turn things around. If they still fail, then they deserve the bad review.
IANAL but if, for example, Apple says, "You aren't purchasing an iPhone. You're purchasing a license to use the iPhone. By using it, you agree not to jailbreak the phone. If you do, we'll take you to court and you will have to pay us $2000 and can not use any other Apple products for five years."
While not very customer friendly, I don't see the difference between this and constantly trying to outsmart the hackers.
I've said this a couple of times now but if manufacturers are so keen on not allowing the hacker community to do whatever they want with their property, why don't they just license the damn things? Seems to be a better way to get users to not tamper with the electronics (at least legally) and provides a legal recourse should they do so.
Outside of warranty, what incentive is there for a company like TI or Apple to continue to build better mouse traps when the hacker community usually just cracks it within days for the sheer fact that TI and Apple don't want them to?
This is a common question, which I'm sure has come up in legal battles. When you upload data to someone else's server, does the data belong to you or does it belong to the person/company that actually owns the hardware? I'm sure for law enforcement folks, they want it both ways.
Consider if the data service in question is raided because an employee had child pornography. They raid the company because he employee used hardware to hid his stash. Now everyone's data is available for search.
IANAL but it seems like if you insist on using these services, you have to give up certain rights. Or you can just encrypt all of your data before uploading. But then, if the hardware is ceased, you no longer have a backup.
I'm surprised that Apple and Sony haven't out-right just put licenses on their products. So instead of buying a product, you're buying a license to use the product but the hardware ultimately still belongs to them.
Not to give them any ideas, but isn't this a way around the whole "don't use anyone else's software or else"? Right now, nothing in the packaging (as far as I know) says that you can't use your own OS or anything other than the OEM software.
Ultimately, I think if Apple, Sony, or anyone else were to do this, people would either knuckle under or buy products that don't infringe on their rights.
As long as there's really cheap workforce and economic differences in the world, things like this won't be solved.
I wonder if a better CAPTCHA system would be idioms. Idioms rarely cross nationalities. The only bad thing about it is that it would prevent non-native speakers from accessing your content.
Also hate to say this but the ad system that Apple is trying to develop could solve this too. You're forced to watch an ad and can't move on until you answer a question about the ad.
The problem of this is two fold, neither of which is easily solvable: * Public over-reaction due to ignorance of actual risk * Political value of security is high
It may be a catch-22 scenario: the fact that people over-react to risk makes it a valuable platform to run on. "Guarentee" security and you'll have people cheering you until the cows come home.
Unfortunately, if you have a common-sense view of security (e.g. deadbolt the door vs have sharks with lasers), you'll get marginalized because it doesn't seem extreme.
There is a stretch of road in Maryland where the dashes that separate the lanes are longer than they are anywhere else. The speed limit is the same. It may not seem important but I believe they did this on purpose because I've gotten many tickets in that area.
I think subconsciously, we see the lines as going slower. So naturally we speed up. I've never gone out there and measured the lines. But I have gotten used to where the police officer sits to catch speeders.
Small border towns will not like these "improvements" because much of their budget is based on the revenue that speeders bring. Most limits are not about safety.
I agree with you, Synchis. It sounds like Kodak tried to reach some sort of settlement in terms of licensing, but weren't able to. So they've lit the perverbial fire underneith them and hopefully that will be enough for apple to come to terms with them.
I'm sure Kodak isn't asking for gobs of money since it already licenses their patents.
It's bad enough that the American public has to live through really bad sequels. It's even worse that Hollywood hasn't had a decent original movie in a long time.
Now, even the lawyers can't think of new ways of screwing the consumer!
There is nothing in the report that says specifically people are hiding pr0n.
I bury URLs that allow me to sign into web sites (such as slashdot and imageshack). I'm also a massive organization freak. Before I moved to a tag-based system (delicious), my bookmark directory structure was 10-levels deep.
I personally like the new awesome bar. Some people hate it and I understand that. They really should make it an option, either in the preferences or within the bookmark.
Slashdot Mirror
I don't deny that bandwidth/capacity/etc is a finite resource...but you have to admit when a company says "unlimited", you think, "wow! I can use as much as I want!"
Back in the bad old days of broadband, they advertised "UNLIMITED!" without restrictions and with no mouse print.
Some companies still do this, but then they hide the language in their 12 page TOS.
If it's not unlimited, don't say it is.
For reference
I wish companies would stop using the word "unlimited" when they really mean "limited". Same thing goes toward coupons that say "No limitations!" but when you read the fine print it says, "Not for gift cards, furniture, clothes, anything we sell, really."
I guess that does make the difference: physical manpower and cost verses a computer button.
It's the same argument I here for allowing the police to put a GPS device in your car. Yeah, they could spend the manpower to follow your car but they make it cheaper by just putting the GPS device on your car.
I've seen various jurisdictions on both sides of the fence. At some point, we as a people are going to be okay with zero privacy. I hope this point is after I'm dead.
If the server is on US Soil, can't they just confiscate the rack or demand that the data center remove the site?
I'm pretty sure this is a Star Trek: Voyager episode. This should get the attention of the Borg.
The biggest problem with this is that streaming allows for content publishers to control distribution (more or less). Allowing an entire work to be stored on a hard drive just begs to be ripped and stored permanently.
I hate the MPAA as much as the next guy. Just saying that even if the bandwidth was there, no way that the powers that hold the keys would allow it.
The point of Zoosh seems to be to create a system using nothing but what everybody already has. I'm sure the software is still being developed but I actually have hopes for this. As another user already mentioned, RFIDs are hardly secure since they can be scanned at quite a large distance away.
I would assume Zoosh uses some sort of trigger. E.g. the phone doesn't emit any sound until you say, "Use my phone to start the transaction."
Additionally, I assume that the company is smart enough to figure out the right frequencies so that you don't get that annoying modem sound that you complained about. Furthermore, I assume that volume would also be considered so that someone would literally have to be next to you to get the entire data stream.
As for security, I imagine that something similar to a one-time use credit card number would be used. For example, the cash register transfers the data to your phone giving you a certificate along with the total purchase price. You select your credit card and then encrypt it with the cert along with a one-time hash. Then the store profits.
I agree
While yes there are other apps, when an elected official makes it easier for his constituents to look at his record, it's a win.
So far, I'm only familiar with one rep (Wolfe - VA) who offers his votes directly on his web site without going through thomas.loc.gov.
I love your sig. I'm stealing it and claiming it as my own. ;-)
It's rare, but I sometimes wished I could be at the trial, but because of work, I can't. You're absolutely right that we need to summarize more. However, I think we can do that while still have access to the full record.
I think of it like a library index file. You get the summary, but if you want, they can get the whole book for you.
On the one hand, you have a better record of testimony. Written transcripts only pick up words, not actions or tone of testimony. Video picks up a lot more.
OTOH, video can be deceiving. People tend to believe video because they are seeing it. Thus, if the camera angles weren't right, it might persuade them one way over another.
Humdinger...
Just to clarify:
The Constitution protects you from the government, not to a private entity. If you sign a contract, then you agree to it.
The best way for a doctor or dentist to prevent bad exposure is to make clear that they want to fix anything if you have a bad experience. Always give the merchant a chance to turn things around. If they still fail, then they deserve the bad review.
IANAL but if, for example, Apple says, "You aren't purchasing an iPhone. You're purchasing a license to use the iPhone. By using it, you agree not to jailbreak the phone. If you do, we'll take you to court and you will have to pay us $2000 and can not use any other Apple products for five years."
While not very customer friendly, I don't see the difference between this and constantly trying to outsmart the hackers.
When I took the SATs, you we were given a calculator. A few tests I took, you could only have non-graphing calculators.
I suppose they could do the same thing here and avoid the whole issue.
I've said this a couple of times now but if manufacturers are so keen on not allowing the hacker community to do whatever they want with their property, why don't they just license the damn things? Seems to be a better way to get users to not tamper with the electronics (at least legally) and provides a legal recourse should they do so.
Outside of warranty, what incentive is there for a company like TI or Apple to continue to build better mouse traps when the hacker community usually just cracks it within days for the sheer fact that TI and Apple don't want them to?
This is a common question, which I'm sure has come up in legal battles. When you upload data to someone else's server, does the data belong to you or does it belong to the person/company that actually owns the hardware? I'm sure for law enforcement folks, they want it both ways.
Consider if the data service in question is raided because an employee had child pornography. They raid the company because he employee used hardware to hid his stash. Now everyone's data is available for search.
IANAL but it seems like if you insist on using these services, you have to give up certain rights. Or you can just encrypt all of your data before uploading. But then, if the hardware is ceased, you no longer have a backup.
I'm surprised that Apple and Sony haven't out-right just put licenses on their products. So instead of buying a product, you're buying a license to use the product but the hardware ultimately still belongs to them.
Not to give them any ideas, but isn't this a way around the whole "don't use anyone else's software or else"? Right now, nothing in the packaging (as far as I know) says that you can't use your own OS or anything other than the OEM software.
Ultimately, I think if Apple, Sony, or anyone else were to do this, people would either knuckle under or buy products that don't infringe on their rights.
As long as there's really cheap workforce and economic differences in the world, things like this won't be solved.
I wonder if a better CAPTCHA system would be idioms. Idioms rarely cross nationalities. The only bad thing about it is that it would prevent non-native speakers from accessing your content.
Also hate to say this but the ad system that Apple is trying to develop could solve this too. You're forced to watch an ad and can't move on until you answer a question about the ad.
How else are you going to tip your stripper?
The problem of this is two fold, neither of which is easily solvable:
* Public over-reaction due to ignorance of actual risk
* Political value of security is high
It may be a catch-22 scenario: the fact that people over-react to risk makes it a valuable platform to run on. "Guarentee" security and you'll have people cheering you until the cows come home.
Unfortunately, if you have a common-sense view of security (e.g. deadbolt the door vs have sharks with lasers), you'll get marginalized because it doesn't seem extreme.
The best way to increase profit is by reducing cost.
Buying a domain for $90 dollars is far more expensive than a domain for $5-10 bucks.
Also, people are used to seeing ".com" addresses. .TRAVEL, et al are still relatively new.
There is a stretch of road in Maryland where the dashes that separate the lanes are longer than they are anywhere else. The speed limit is the same. It may not seem important but I believe they did this on purpose because I've gotten many tickets in that area.
I think subconsciously, we see the lines as going slower. So naturally we speed up. I've never gone out there and measured the lines. But I have gotten used to where the police officer sits to catch speeders.
Small border towns will not like these "improvements" because much of their budget is based on the revenue that speeders bring. Most limits are not about safety.
A thought-out response! Wow, a first for me!
I agree with you, Synchis. It sounds like Kodak tried to reach some sort of settlement in terms of licensing, but weren't able to. So they've lit the perverbial fire underneith them and hopefully that will be enough for apple to come to terms with them.
I'm sure Kodak isn't asking for gobs of money since it already licenses their patents.
It's bad enough that the American public has to live through really bad sequels. It's even worse that Hollywood hasn't had a decent original movie in a long time.
Now, even the lawyers can't think of new ways of screwing the consumer!
You just can't make this stuff up.
There is nothing in the report that says specifically people are hiding pr0n.
I bury URLs that allow me to sign into web sites (such as slashdot and imageshack). I'm also a massive organization freak. Before I moved to a tag-based system (delicious), my bookmark directory structure was 10-levels deep.
I personally like the new awesome bar. Some people hate it and I understand that. They really should make it an option, either in the preferences or within the bookmark.