Eh. It's not about the space, it's about good old fashioned "normalization"...Don't duplicate effort. They'd have to have staff to maintain Google video, and staff to maintain YouTube, staff to program new features for Google video, and staff to program new features for YouTube.
The only problem I see is that, historically, YouTube has been much quicker to respond to DMCA-style takedown notices than Google Video, and I'd hate to see that policy continue at YouTube and lose Google video at the same time.
I don't know why they bother. CSS was "easy" because the encryption didn't change, so once you'd broken it, it was done, unless they wanted to break the standard.
With AACS they "learned" something and used much beefier encryption, and mutable keys...Which makes the keys vulnerable. Some bright boy notices this, breaks the weak security on the keys, and voila! The system, while not broken, is seriously compromised.
It's all pointless though. The companies pushing the DRM have far fewer resources than the people who want to view the content, and the content itself cannot be truly secured because it's meant to be viewed! So they're just throwing away money, and, as Muselix64 himself cogently pointed out in the "interview", the turnaround for fixes from the companies is so long, that there is effectively no way they can stay ahead of the crackers.
It's not about being a geek, it's about taking a firm stand on the truth.
Ask Larry Flint if it's better to bow and scrape to people who will never stop being offended by what you sell, or instead take 'em to court and make them try to prove it against the Constitution?
It's either to draw a line and say, "This is the limit to the concessions we are going to make to placate your starchy prudishness. You can take responsibility for your own decisions, and watch out for the welfare of your own damn kids, instead of trying to make the whole world into a safe, sugarcoated fairy-land for them," or to just completely cave and go back to making Pac-Man.
Psssh. In my experience, females who don't abuse their relationships with men are as bitter about women who do as men are.
It's like when you see a really cool girl, and she's dating a guy who's cheating on her, and when they break up she does something that makes him look like a dickhead...Does that make you want to date her less, or more? She's within her rights to get some of her own back, same as this guy is within his rights to sue the girl who walked off with his hundred bucks.
And generally, while putting the beatdown on people who are using you doesn't endear you to people who want to use you, it does endear you to people who feel like the users always get a free ride, and they're the ones you want to be dating anyway.
Domain parking is just another form of internet garbage, like half-assed "portal" sites, and spam.
It's only sense to know that there will forever be garbage, and that we will forever be looking for ways to sort through that garbage for the good stuff.
Looking at it, you'd think that domain parking wouldn't be half as profitable as it is. We clearly need to work harder on our search engines.
I could see an MMORPG a la Planetside, but I doubt they'd do that.
A way to do an MMO that would be cool would be to flesh out the scope of the conflict and expand it to a wider scale, while holding on to the RTS nature of it...Think Rise of Empires but with planets...There is a zone you want to invade, so you start an attack there against either a computer opponent or a real opponent...Other people who are cruising your game "universe" see that there is a fight kicking up there and join in.
Win the battle, and gain resources/technology options, which would let you build higher tier units, or give you production bonuses. Lose the battle, and maybe lose some bonuses.
Remember, MMO doesn't have to be MMORPG...A big persistent universe with dynamic opportunities for tactical combat that actually has a strategic impact on the whole conflict...Damn, that would be cool.
That's a little misleading...Those statistics include people who are arrested for various types of exhibitionism, public indecency, possession of child porn, etc, and not just people who actually go out and actively solicit children for sex.
It's been true in the past, and it's true right now, and it, in all likelihood, will continue to be true...It is far far far more likely for a child to be molested/sexually assaulted by a family member than by a random stranger off the internet...90.2% of sex crimes against minors (bjs) (17 and younger) were by acquaintances and family members, and that percentage only gets higher as they get younger.
As usual though, no one wants to look at that issue...They would much much rather focus on the improbable event of an assault by a stranger, than the far more likely event of an assault by a family member or a family friend.
I think the biological pressure is a big part of the problem. The brain may not be fit for having kids, but the body demands replication, and so the brain ends up in a situation it's not equipped for because it caved to the physical urge.
Religious Moji: "No Timmy don't look at porn! Porn is bad!" Timmy: "Gee thanks Moji, what should I do instead?" Moji: "You should embrace Jesus Christ as your personal lord and saviour!" Timmy: "Aw Moji, I wanna play!" Moji: "You to risk eternal damnation in the firey pit! Pray for forgiveness!"
Spam Moji: "No Timmy don't look at porn! Porn is bad!" Timmy: "Gee thanks Moji, what should I do instead?" Moji: "I think you should IM my friend bob_the_businessman, and tell him about my 5 million dollars languishing in a Nigerian bank account" Timmy: "Gosh Moji, you have a lot of friends...That's the 423,892,120th today!"
Sociopathic Moji: "No Timmy don't look at porn! Porn is bad!" Timmy: "Gee thanks Moji, what should I do instead?" Moji: "You should entice girls over to your house by pretending to be rich, and then kill them, and eat their livers with fava beans and a nice chianti." Timmy: "That doesn't sound like a nice thing to do, Moji." Moji: "I'm your only friend Timmy, now do as I say! Remember to save the kidneys for later."
How about, and this is radical, just paying more atention as a goddamn parent. Jesus. What is wrong with people?
I think it's both. You need to teach the child how to be responsible and make good decisions, but you also need to keep an eye on them.
And it's not about pulling a 1984 and installing keystroke capture gear on their computer, but instead to foster a home environment where you talk to them and they talk to you and something as significant as "I'm going to go out and meet this guy from MySpace at a hotel tonight" isn't going to slip by because you have such a history of flying off the handle when they tell you things that they don't tell you things anymore.
Why must they rise? I see absolutely no reasoning behind that, only speculation. iirc, the air can only hold a finite amount of water vapor before that vapor begins to precipitate...when the threshold is reached, vapor->liquid, and the atmospheric percentage drops.
Human beings dump so much extra water vapor into the air right now, it's hard to even quantify. All the irrigation we do, all the concrete we put down that prevents water from being absorbed into the soil, all the steam released from power plants...This stuff has been going on for decades, with no measurable effects.
And all the man made contributions to water vapor are barely a drop in the bucket. 90% of atmospheric water vapor comes from evaporation, and about 10% of it comes from transpiration (plants). The sun + the ocean pretty much trumps anything we could come up with in terms of increasing the amount of water vapor in the air...It is literally impossible for us to match that level of energy, given our current technology.
None. H20 precipitates out of the atmosphere in the temperature range that includes all of planet earth, as opposed to C02, which is only liquid at pressures higher than those naturally found on earth (5 atm / 516.7575 kPa), and solid at around -108.4 degrees F (-78C).
So while H2O is an greenhouse gas, it's low dwell time in the atmosphere makes it's effect negligible.
Most solar panels are covered under warranty for 80% of their maximum rated power output for 25 years, and the panels themselves are generally expected to last around 40 years, though efficency does decline over time.
Water vapor? Holy. Crap. There is NO WAY we could add enough water vapor into the air to cause anything more than a temporary local increase in temperature, and you know why? Because it precipitates out extremely quickly. We call it "rain" where I'm from.
Hell, if we switched the whole US over to hydrogen fuel, we'd probably just start competing with the water vapor we create by irrigating the midwest.
There is a world of difference between putting a half million dollars into personal energy independence, and putting two thousand dollars into getting your home re-insulated, or buying some five dollar florescent light bulbs. That's what being "green" is about: Not using more energy than you have to. You can do that, and save yourself money at the same time.
People like you who willfully miss the point of intelligent environmentalism make me crazy. It's not about a bunch of damn hippies and their incoherent agenda, it's about being a better consumer. But noooo, as soon as you say the word "environment" you're just some whackjob liberal out to save the baby harp seals, and make everyone ride a bike to work.
The problem with this type of theorizing is that they always base their assumptions on things that are unlikely to hold true by the time we actually start trying to do anything like this.
It's like when IBM theorized that the future world market for computers was around a dozen units, back in the 40's and 50's...They had no conception of the evolution that was going to occur which would make things that they would have considered to be supercomputers, be required per student for college math classes, and fit comfortably in that same students back pocket.
Likewise, the cost, endurance, propultion, and sensor capability of these hypothetical probes is based on current technology and understanding, and, even laying aside FTL, there is still a hell of a lot that can change.
Bank sites should be as server-side as possible. Anything else opens the user up to exploits; I'm not even a big fan of their push toward Ajax. Putting a lot of effort into cosmetic widgets is problematic at best.
I just love all the excuses the people who voted for Bush twice come up with to justify their idiocy, now that they're finally disenchanted with his policy.
Next time pay a little goddamn attention. I don't see how anyone who would consider themselves to be anything other than a die hard right winger could ever vote for that joker twice. Do you live in a cave? And goddamn it, stupid democrats, W.T.F is wrong with your taste? Kerry? Kerry? Are you INSANE? A half competent candidate could have beat Shrub. How about you man up in '08 and put someone up who has a spine, a brain, a plan, and more charisma than a lump of dog crap? Is that even possible?
Treating every issue as if it has two sides means that often you have to go out and invent a second side.
This is why debates like global warming and evolution loom so large, because in the interests of "fairness" views that are held by very small minorities of people are given the same amount of play as views that are extensively proven and supported.
Rather than this, I'd rather see a standard of truth applied to non-opinion mass media...Make them cite their numbers, and post the credentials of their "experts", and make them admit to errors of fact that appear on their broadcasts.
Right now our primary focus is stopping Greenhouse emissions, so suggesting that we put less thought into that and more thought into dealing with the consequences which we're going to have to face isn't unreasonable. I'm not saying we should stop worry about Greenhouse emissions, or even that we should be spending more time dealing with the consequences than trying to deal with the problem itself.
In retrospect, however, it is pretty similar to the way a lot of people try to put off doing anything in the present, by claiming that we should be working on improving things in the future. I apologize for any misunderstanding...The issue is so loaded that even relatively neutral statements take on an inflammatory tone.
While we may (possibly) still have time to prevent extreme climate change, I think we're definitely going to have enough climate change to cause problems, and if we start addressing them now, that is a much better idea than waiting until we're in a state of emergency.
I doubt we'll do it though. You can put me on the record for saying that we'll stop using fossil fuels only when a cheaper alternative is created and widely accepted, and that we won't do a damn thing to prepare for the side-effects of climate change until it's already a serious issue.
I'm not saying that. What I am saying is that the current model is obviously somewhat imprecise, and needs to be refined, and I am speculating that we may need to add more weight to the idea that a more active solar cycle is part of the reason for the imprecision of the model.
My assertion was simply that the melt being higher than expected made an interesting data point, which might call for an adjustment of the model, thus reducing the approximations which give so much leeway to the melt predictions. This is self evident.
I also stated that we ought to spend some effort looking into dealing with the warming that is occurring and will likely continue to occur for some time to come. I, at no point, suggested that we should stop trying to reduce greenhouse emissions, but rather that we should not focus on it completely, as clearly we are quickly moving toward an immediate problem.
I fail to see how anyone but a fool or a zealot could find these statements to be anything other than common sense. They are not objectionable.
As for my recommendations for remediation being "lacking" I suppose that would be because I didn't make any. I'm not going to be developing new climate models, and I'm not going to be developing engineering plans to deal with increased seal levels, and decreased supplies of fresh water.
Slashdot Mirror
Eh. It's not about the space, it's about good old fashioned "normalization"...Don't duplicate effort. They'd have to have staff to maintain Google video, and staff to maintain YouTube, staff to program new features for Google video, and staff to program new features for YouTube.
The only problem I see is that, historically, YouTube has been much quicker to respond to DMCA-style takedown notices than Google Video, and I'd hate to see that policy continue at YouTube and lose Google video at the same time.
I don't know why they bother. CSS was "easy" because the encryption didn't change, so once you'd broken it, it was done, unless they wanted to break the standard.
With AACS they "learned" something and used much beefier encryption, and mutable keys...Which makes the keys vulnerable. Some bright boy notices this, breaks the weak security on the keys, and voila! The system, while not broken, is seriously compromised.
It's all pointless though. The companies pushing the DRM have far fewer resources than the people who want to view the content, and the content itself cannot be truly secured because it's meant to be viewed! So they're just throwing away money, and, as Muselix64 himself cogently pointed out in the "interview", the turnaround for fixes from the companies is so long, that there is effectively no way they can stay ahead of the crackers.
It's not about being a geek, it's about taking a firm stand on the truth.
Ask Larry Flint if it's better to bow and scrape to people who will never stop being offended by what you sell, or instead take 'em to court and make them try to prove it against the Constitution?
It's either to draw a line and say, "This is the limit to the concessions we are going to make to placate your starchy prudishness. You can take responsibility for your own decisions, and watch out for the welfare of your own damn kids, instead of trying to make the whole world into a safe, sugarcoated fairy-land for them," or to just completely cave and go back to making Pac-Man.
Psssh. In my experience, females who don't abuse their relationships with men are as bitter about women who do as men are.
It's like when you see a really cool girl, and she's dating a guy who's cheating on her, and when they break up she does something that makes him look like a dickhead...Does that make you want to date her less, or more? She's within her rights to get some of her own back, same as this guy is within his rights to sue the girl who walked off with his hundred bucks.
And generally, while putting the beatdown on people who are using you doesn't endear you to people who want to use you, it does endear you to people who feel like the users always get a free ride, and they're the ones you want to be dating anyway.
Domain parking is just another form of internet garbage, like half-assed "portal" sites, and spam.
It's only sense to know that there will forever be garbage, and that we will forever be looking for ways to sort through that garbage for the good stuff.
Looking at it, you'd think that domain parking wouldn't be half as profitable as it is. We clearly need to work harder on our search engines.
Sigh. I've obviously worked with the USPS too much...
668 would actually be the Neighbor of the Beast, as would 664.
665 and 667 are on the other side of the street.
Sigh. Think of what I could know, if I didn't know that...
I could see an MMORPG a la Planetside, but I doubt they'd do that.
A way to do an MMO that would be cool would be to flesh out the scope of the conflict and expand it to a wider scale, while holding on to the RTS nature of it...Think Rise of Empires but with planets...There is a zone you want to invade, so you start an attack there against either a computer opponent or a real opponent...Other people who are cruising your game "universe" see that there is a fight kicking up there and join in.
Win the battle, and gain resources/technology options, which would let you build higher tier units, or give you production bonuses. Lose the battle, and maybe lose some bonuses.
Remember, MMO doesn't have to be MMORPG...A big persistent universe with dynamic opportunities for tactical combat that actually has a strategic impact on the whole conflict...Damn, that would be cool.
That's a little misleading...Those statistics include people who are arrested for various types of exhibitionism, public indecency, possession of child porn, etc, and not just people who actually go out and actively solicit children for sex.
It's been true in the past, and it's true right now, and it, in all likelihood, will continue to be true...It is far far far more likely for a child to be molested/sexually assaulted by a family member than by a random stranger off the internet...90.2% of sex crimes against minors (bjs) (17 and younger) were by acquaintances and family members, and that percentage only gets higher as they get younger.
As usual though, no one wants to look at that issue...They would much much rather focus on the improbable event of an assault by a stranger, than the far more likely event of an assault by a family member or a family friend.
I think the biological pressure is a big part of the problem. The brain may not be fit for having kids, but the body demands replication, and so the brain ends up in a situation it's not equipped for because it caved to the physical urge.
You can see that pattern replicated everywhere.
Endless possibilities....
Religious
Moji: "No Timmy don't look at porn! Porn is bad!"
Timmy: "Gee thanks Moji, what should I do instead?"
Moji: "You should embrace Jesus Christ as your personal lord and saviour!"
Timmy: "Aw Moji, I wanna play!"
Moji: "You to risk eternal damnation in the firey pit! Pray for forgiveness!"
Spam
Moji: "No Timmy don't look at porn! Porn is bad!"
Timmy: "Gee thanks Moji, what should I do instead?"
Moji: "I think you should IM my friend bob_the_businessman, and tell him about my 5 million dollars languishing in a Nigerian bank account"
Timmy: "Gosh Moji, you have a lot of friends...That's the 423,892,120th today!"
Sociopathic
Moji: "No Timmy don't look at porn! Porn is bad!"
Timmy: "Gee thanks Moji, what should I do instead?"
Moji: "You should entice girls over to your house by pretending to be rich, and then kill them, and eat their livers with fava beans and a nice chianti."
Timmy: "That doesn't sound like a nice thing to do, Moji."
Moji: "I'm your only friend Timmy, now do as I say! Remember to save the kidneys for later."
How about, and this is radical, just paying more atention as a goddamn parent. Jesus. What is wrong with people?
Microsoft: Haha jackasses! The Xbox 360 is outselling the hell out of your overpriced console and there is nothing you can do about it!
Sony: O Rly? Squirt this bizitches.
Ahhh, the mysterious world of corporate interaction.
I think it's both. You need to teach the child how to be responsible and make good decisions, but you also need to keep an eye on them.
And it's not about pulling a 1984 and installing keystroke capture gear on their computer, but instead to foster a home environment where you talk to them and they talk to you and something as significant as "I'm going to go out and meet this guy from MySpace at a hotel tonight" isn't going to slip by because you have such a history of flying off the handle when they tell you things that they don't tell you things anymore.
Why must they rise? I see absolutely no reasoning behind that, only speculation. iirc, the air can only hold a finite amount of water vapor before that vapor begins to precipitate...when the threshold is reached, vapor->liquid, and the atmospheric percentage drops.
Human beings dump so much extra water vapor into the air right now, it's hard to even quantify. All the irrigation we do, all the concrete we put down that prevents water from being absorbed into the soil, all the steam released from power plants...This stuff has been going on for decades, with no measurable effects.
And all the man made contributions to water vapor are barely a drop in the bucket. 90% of atmospheric water vapor comes from evaporation, and about 10% of it comes from transpiration (plants). The sun + the ocean pretty much trumps anything we could come up with in terms of increasing the amount of water vapor in the air...It is literally impossible for us to match that level of energy, given our current technology.
None. H20 precipitates out of the atmosphere in the temperature range that includes all of planet earth, as opposed to C02, which is only liquid at pressures higher than those naturally found on earth (5 atm / 516.7575 kPa), and solid at around -108.4 degrees F (-78C).
So while H2O is an greenhouse gas, it's low dwell time in the atmosphere makes it's effect negligible.
Most solar panels are covered under warranty for 80% of their maximum rated power output for 25 years, and the panels themselves are generally expected to last around 40 years, though efficency does decline over time.
Water vapor? Holy. Crap. There is NO WAY we could add enough water vapor into the air to cause anything more than a temporary local increase in temperature, and you know why? Because it precipitates out extremely quickly. We call it "rain" where I'm from.
Hell, if we switched the whole US over to hydrogen fuel, we'd probably just start competing with the water vapor we create by irrigating the midwest.
There is a world of difference between putting a half million dollars into personal energy independence, and putting two thousand dollars into getting your home re-insulated, or buying some five dollar florescent light bulbs. That's what being "green" is about: Not using more energy than you have to. You can do that, and save yourself money at the same time.
People like you who willfully miss the point of intelligent environmentalism make me crazy. It's not about a bunch of damn hippies and their incoherent agenda, it's about being a better consumer. But noooo, as soon as you say the word "environment" you're just some whackjob liberal out to save the baby harp seals, and make everyone ride a bike to work.
The problem with this type of theorizing is that they always base their assumptions on things that are unlikely to hold true by the time we actually start trying to do anything like this.
It's like when IBM theorized that the future world market for computers was around a dozen units, back in the 40's and 50's...They had no conception of the evolution that was going to occur which would make things that they would have considered to be supercomputers, be required per student for college math classes, and fit comfortably in that same students back pocket.
Likewise, the cost, endurance, propultion, and sensor capability of these hypothetical probes is based on current technology and understanding, and, even laying aside FTL, there is still a hell of a lot that can change.
No.
Bank sites should be as server-side as possible. Anything else opens the user up to exploits; I'm not even a big fan of their push toward Ajax. Putting a lot of effort into cosmetic widgets is problematic at best.
I just love all the excuses the people who voted for Bush twice come up with to justify their idiocy, now that they're finally disenchanted with his policy.
Next time pay a little goddamn attention. I don't see how anyone who would consider themselves to be anything other than a die hard right winger could ever vote for that joker twice. Do you live in a cave? And goddamn it, stupid democrats, W.T.F is wrong with your taste? Kerry? Kerry? Are you INSANE? A half competent candidate could have beat Shrub. How about you man up in '08 and put someone up who has a spine, a brain, a plan, and more charisma than a lump of dog crap? Is that even possible?
Treating every issue as if it has two sides means that often you have to go out and invent a second side.
This is why debates like global warming and evolution loom so large, because in the interests of "fairness" views that are held by very small minorities of people are given the same amount of play as views that are extensively proven and supported.
Rather than this, I'd rather see a standard of truth applied to non-opinion mass media...Make them cite their numbers, and post the credentials of their "experts", and make them admit to errors of fact that appear on their broadcasts.
Right now our primary focus is stopping Greenhouse emissions, so suggesting that we put less thought into that and more thought into dealing with the consequences which we're going to have to face isn't unreasonable. I'm not saying we should stop worry about Greenhouse emissions, or even that we should be spending more time dealing with the consequences than trying to deal with the problem itself.
In retrospect, however, it is pretty similar to the way a lot of people try to put off doing anything in the present, by claiming that we should be working on improving things in the future. I apologize for any misunderstanding...The issue is so loaded that even relatively neutral statements take on an inflammatory tone.
While we may (possibly) still have time to prevent extreme climate change, I think we're definitely going to have enough climate change to cause problems, and if we start addressing them now, that is a much better idea than waiting until we're in a state of emergency.
I doubt we'll do it though. You can put me on the record for saying that we'll stop using fossil fuels only when a cheaper alternative is created and widely accepted, and that we won't do a damn thing to prepare for the side-effects of climate change until it's already a serious issue.
I'm not saying that. What I am saying is that the current model is obviously somewhat imprecise, and needs to be refined, and I am speculating that we may need to add more weight to the idea that a more active solar cycle is part of the reason for the imprecision of the model.
My assertion was simply that the melt being higher than expected made an interesting data point, which might call for an adjustment of the model, thus reducing the approximations which give so much leeway to the melt predictions. This is self evident.
I also stated that we ought to spend some effort looking into dealing with the warming that is occurring and will likely continue to occur for some time to come. I, at no point, suggested that we should stop trying to reduce greenhouse emissions, but rather that we should not focus on it completely, as clearly we are quickly moving toward an immediate problem.
I fail to see how anyone but a fool or a zealot could find these statements to be anything other than common sense. They are not objectionable.
As for my recommendations for remediation being "lacking" I suppose that would be because I didn't make any. I'm not going to be developing new climate models, and I'm not going to be developing engineering plans to deal with increased seal levels, and decreased supplies of fresh water.