I feel like a state actor such as China would have the resources to simply get someone hired into a position at Marriott who could have access to the data.
Let me start with, crypto as an investment is stupid. But, it really is too bad if it fails. It would be nice to have a replacement for cash that has a similar anonymity to cash.
Look, I'm not looking to do anything illegal or illicit but the situation of today where Visa could conceivably sell my purchase history to Google who would then target advertising to me or be able to provide the number of Snickers bars I ate this past year to health care or insurance providers doesn't sit particularly well with me either. So being able to purchase some groceries, clothes, etc through electronic means but in an anonymous fashion has a certain draw for me.
Cool tech if they can make it an actual product but I am getting hung up on their storage density of Blu-ray disks. Since when can a Blu-ray disk store 12 terabits of data per square inch? As far as I am aware the largest disks store 128GB of data on a what my quick back of the envelop calculations show to be around 12 square inches.
The problem at hand has to do with peering relationships. Normally what happens between the big Tier 1 providers is that they make agreements to the effect of "I'll take X amount of your traffic and you take Y amount of my traffic and assuming X and Y are pretty close we just call it even". Well, Netflix creates a massive imbalance because they send tons of traffic and don't receive hardly anything. Because they are so large this creates a problem on those peering relationships because they are no longer symmetric.
So, what happens? The consumer side ISP looks at the Netflix ISP and says "Hey, you are sending us 4x the traffic that we are sending you. Either pay up for the difference otherwise we rate limit you". This happened several times with Netflix. The Netflix ISP wouldn't pay up so Netflix got rate limited and Netflix users got pissed.
So, who is at fault here? Kinda hard to say. Probably what should happen is that the Netflix ISP would pay the overage on the asymmetric peering and increase costs back to Netflix.
Now, none of this is really Net Neutrality related. Netflix is really an odd example due to the absolute insane amount of traffic they generate...most companies are not going to be able to change the balance of Tier 1 peering providers in a major way. In general Netflix should be placing equipment on all large ISP's to increase it's own quality of delivery.
We managed to get electric and phone to every home and cable to most...we can get fiber to all of them. Stop screwing around with these other stupid techs.
Technically Moore's Law (I assume that is what you are referencing) says the number of transistors per square inch of wafer will double every 18 month, not that performance will double.
Fake punt
Fake punt
Fake punt
QB sneak
Double reverse
Fake punt
(Yes, I know there is a limited selection of plays to choose from...really the more amazing thing is they got a first down on 3x fake punts and a QB sneak)
I understand fully that is sounds creepy...but is it really that odd?
We replace dying organs with functioning ones. We use stem cells from healthy adults to cure a variety of ailments in sick people. Is it really that odd that the blood from a healthy, young person may have positive affects on the aged?
I have not done any research on this technique nor would I endorse it but I am a bit confused why it is being so roundly dismissed.
Would it really be that much more expensive to drop 50 or more if you are doing it? I would think that most of the cost is not in the materials but labor.
I'll be curious if they manage to support the media codec framework. Broadcom opened up some of the internals for the VideoCore for handling graphics acceleration but they have held onto the codec support for licensing reasons.
I've got to disagree a bit with you. I'm fine with her using her own server for personal email. However, any government business, whether classified or not, should be done through government email servers. That's why we have open record laws is so that we have a level of transparency and, to me, she was blatantly trying to skirt those laws by setting up her own server.
And what about if the cost to entry of the concept is too high for the individual? A large corp could just sit and wait till the "implementation" period expired and then grab the idea. How long do you have to get to the "use" period before you lose the patent?
No, the issue is that patents are granted for stupid, unoriginal things. If only good, unique ideas were allowed then this would not be the same issue.
I won't purport to speak for all of Slashdot but to me this is a valid use of DRM. With Netflix you are purchasing a service, not owning the media. They are within their rights to try and protect that content.
Considering pretty much all OTA TV in the US is MPEG2 Transport Streams, saying that MPEG2 is not used anymore is a bit of an overstep. Anyone wanting to build out a PVR using a backend that captures without realtime transcoding needs to have the MPEG2 codec bundle.
All that being said, a couple bucks extra for that optional functionality is hardly an issue.
It certainly depends on the use case. Datacenter power and rack space is expensive. If your cost is $100 / month for the additional power and rack for your extra server the vmware package starts to make sense. But yeah, when you get all the bells and whistles VMware can get crazy expensive.
I was referring to the linked article regarding cashless adoption being pushed. Specifically it cited Zimbabwe, Kenya and Somaliland where rampant inflation caused a loss in confidence of the currency.
Seems more like mistrust of local currency because of inflation is pushing people to use US dollars. Alternately, the push for credit cards that transact in US dollars. So, pretty much they are placing all their trust in the banking system as far as I can tell.
Ultimately I believe that the court ruled incorrectly here. The way this should have been handled is that the court should have ruled based on the law as written. The thing is, if our political system wasn't so messed up it would have never reached the supreme court. Congress would have simply fixed the law itself to clarify the actual intent and life would have gone on. Although it is pretty clear what the intent was in this circumstance I think it is dangerous to allow for that broad of discretion for the judicial branch.
Slashdot Mirror
I feel like a state actor such as China would have the resources to simply get someone hired into a position at Marriott who could have access to the data.
I drive a crappy old car that cannot be started with a key fob signal. You can't steal my car!
Oh....
Let me start with, crypto as an investment is stupid. But, it really is too bad if it fails. It would be nice to have a replacement for cash that has a similar anonymity to cash.
Look, I'm not looking to do anything illegal or illicit but the situation of today where Visa could conceivably sell my purchase history to Google who would then target advertising to me or be able to provide the number of Snickers bars I ate this past year to health care or insurance providers doesn't sit particularly well with me either. So being able to purchase some groceries, clothes, etc through electronic means but in an anonymous fashion has a certain draw for me.
Cool tech if they can make it an actual product but I am getting hung up on their storage density of Blu-ray disks. Since when can a Blu-ray disk store 12 terabits of data per square inch? As far as I am aware the largest disks store 128GB of data on a what my quick back of the envelop calculations show to be around 12 square inches.
The fallback would happen at the protocol level if you need older crypto standards (I.e. TLS 1.3 fallback to TLS 1.2).
It's not quite that simple though.
The problem at hand has to do with peering relationships. Normally what happens between the big Tier 1 providers is that they make agreements to the effect of "I'll take X amount of your traffic and you take Y amount of my traffic and assuming X and Y are pretty close we just call it even". Well, Netflix creates a massive imbalance because they send tons of traffic and don't receive hardly anything. Because they are so large this creates a problem on those peering relationships because they are no longer symmetric.
So, what happens? The consumer side ISP looks at the Netflix ISP and says "Hey, you are sending us 4x the traffic that we are sending you. Either pay up for the difference otherwise we rate limit you". This happened several times with Netflix. The Netflix ISP wouldn't pay up so Netflix got rate limited and Netflix users got pissed.
So, who is at fault here? Kinda hard to say. Probably what should happen is that the Netflix ISP would pay the overage on the asymmetric peering and increase costs back to Netflix.
Now, none of this is really Net Neutrality related. Netflix is really an odd example due to the absolute insane amount of traffic they generate...most companies are not going to be able to change the balance of Tier 1 peering providers in a major way. In general Netflix should be placing equipment on all large ISP's to increase it's own quality of delivery.
We managed to get electric and phone to every home and cable to most...we can get fiber to all of them. Stop screwing around with these other stupid techs.
I'll be that guy...
Technically Moore's Law (I assume that is what you are referencing) says the number of transistors per square inch of wafer will double every 18 month, not that performance will double.
87,600 Wh = 87.6 kWh 87.6 kWh * .12 = $10.50 / year
Fake punt Fake punt Fake punt QB sneak Double reverse Fake punt (Yes, I know there is a limited selection of plays to choose from...really the more amazing thing is they got a first down on 3x fake punts and a QB sneak)
According to this http://www.recode.net/2016/3/24/11587234/two-years-later-facebooks-oculus-acquisition-has-changed-virtual Oculus had 75 employees when it was acquired. So, that $700 million to retain employees works out to a little under $10 million per employee for retention?!?!
I am really in the wrong industry...
I understand fully that is sounds creepy...but is it really that odd?
We replace dying organs with functioning ones. We use stem cells from healthy adults to cure a variety of ailments in sick people. Is it really that odd that the blood from a healthy, young person may have positive affects on the aged?
I have not done any research on this technique nor would I endorse it but I am a bit confused why it is being so roundly dismissed.
Would it really be that much more expensive to drop 50 or more if you are doing it? I would think that most of the cost is not in the materials but labor.
These were bone marrow stem cells, not embryonic stem cells.
I'll be curious if they manage to support the media codec framework. Broadcom opened up some of the internals for the VideoCore for handling graphics acceleration but they have held onto the codec support for licensing reasons.
Thank goodness all of us here at Slashdot are in the clear.
Sorry....but you know someone had to make the joke.
I've got to disagree a bit with you. I'm fine with her using her own server for personal email. However, any government business, whether classified or not, should be done through government email servers. That's why we have open record laws is so that we have a level of transparency and, to me, she was blatantly trying to skirt those laws by setting up her own server.
My 2c. Take it for what it's worth.
And what about if the cost to entry of the concept is too high for the individual? A large corp could just sit and wait till the "implementation" period expired and then grab the idea. How long do you have to get to the "use" period before you lose the patent?
No, the issue is that patents are granted for stupid, unoriginal things. If only good, unique ideas were allowed then this would not be the same issue.
I won't purport to speak for all of Slashdot but to me this is a valid use of DRM. With Netflix you are purchasing a service, not owning the media. They are within their rights to try and protect that content.
Considering pretty much all OTA TV in the US is MPEG2 Transport Streams, saying that MPEG2 is not used anymore is a bit of an overstep. Anyone wanting to build out a PVR using a backend that captures without realtime transcoding needs to have the MPEG2 codec bundle.
All that being said, a couple bucks extra for that optional functionality is hardly an issue.
It certainly depends on the use case. Datacenter power and rack space is expensive. If your cost is $100 / month for the additional power and rack for your extra server the vmware package starts to make sense. But yeah, when you get all the bells and whistles VMware can get crazy expensive.
I was referring to the linked article regarding cashless adoption being pushed. Specifically it cited Zimbabwe, Kenya and Somaliland where rampant inflation caused a loss in confidence of the currency.
Seems more like mistrust of local currency because of inflation is pushing people to use US dollars. Alternately, the push for credit cards that transact in US dollars. So, pretty much they are placing all their trust in the banking system as far as I can tell.
Yeah, someone is confusing bits and bytes.
Ultimately I believe that the court ruled incorrectly here. The way this should have been handled is that the court should have ruled based on the law as written. The thing is, if our political system wasn't so messed up it would have never reached the supreme court. Congress would have simply fixed the law itself to clarify the actual intent and life would have gone on. Although it is pretty clear what the intent was in this circumstance I think it is dangerous to allow for that broad of discretion for the judicial branch.