I'd like some anti-Microsoft news that at least appears reputable, and not overly sensationalized "ZOMG Balmer blew up M$ eats babies" crap like the stuff I've seen here for the past few weeks.
You're new around here, aren't you?
Or more likely, been around long enough to get tired of all the childish crap and instead want sane discussions about what happened and sane arguments over what to do about it.
Especially with certain distributed versioning systems that give everyone a copy of the full history. But even without that, there's the up-to-date copy on people's dev machines plus the history on the server, which would be about as good as having one normal backup that's guaranteed to be whichever version you were looking for.
If the company you are suing is incorporated in one state, and you, the plaintiff, is in another - can you sue in a third state that has no party resident within it
I think it depends on where "they" (is "they" the company suing or being sued? Or both?) do business, not just where they're incorporated. If my company is based in Delaware and yours is based in California, and we meet in Kansas to actually do business, why wouldn't we be able to use the Kansas courts if one of us got ripped off? That would be where the supposed ripping-off actually happened.
You didn't LOOK at the graph, did you? That's my citation.
This is the last 2 years, with that "almost completely VERTICAL" drop.
This is a 2 year span at 1929, that little tiny blip on the left of your zoomed out chart. Notice how it's actually more vertical than the current drop?
This is your chart, redrawn to have a log scale vertical axis instead of linear. It looks like "now" is roughly comparable to 1938 or the early 1970s.
In financial markets, everybody doing the same thing is the classic recipe for a bubble and inevitable bust.
Citation? Booms and busts are caused by, respectively, expansion and contraction of the money supply (usually in the form of bank credit), often accompanied by manipulated interest rates. The formulas used by lots of investing firms could cause clusters of errors, but the extent of types of companies (and governments) affected points to a more Austrian-style, systemic boom/bust rather than a single-(important-)sector miscalculation.
It could be that, or it could just be massstupidity ("a million lemmings can't be wrong"). Or probably some combination of both.
Lenevo is NOT taking the same components as found in a desktop machine and repackaging them. When you go from Desktop to Laptop almost everything changes. Everything needs to be super fast, but weigh as little as possible and consume very low power. The CPU used, the North and South Bridge, and various other ICs and chipsets are different . They cost more. Everything cost more. Manufacturing costs are higher. Engineering costs aremuch higher, because they need people who understand all of this.
Yes, exactly.
So no, the cost is not "just for mobility".
WTF? That pretty much directly contradicts everything you just said.
It depends on how competitive the market is, how profitable the cellular companies currently are, and probably a few other things.
If the market is not competitive at all (perfect monopoly), the price is probably fixed at whatever generates the most revenue and won't change.
If the cellular companies aren't making enough profit (result of perfect competition), they'll need to raise prices to cover the fees or go bust.
Reality is somewhere in the middle, I'd personally guess somewhat closer to the "monopoly" end due to needing to buy spectrum and such. So the prices will go up some, and profits will go down some (probably slightly more, because of limited competition).
[snip "copyrights make content creation a viable business model"]
So where are the studies showing that this actually works in practice, that creative output as a whole has increased (quantity or quality) due to copyrights?
How did playwrights/composers make a living before copyright (especially given that there were people who could watch/listen to a performance and remember it well enough to duplicate it)?
How is it that some publishers make money selling copies of government reports (which are public domain)?
second url is listed as "http://www.cdsmodel.com./"
remove the period/dot after "com"
That's the entire point, the way DNS works all names actually end with a '.'. But because it's always there, it can be implicit. What probably happened is that somebody screwed up their domain-based virtual hosting somehow due to not understanding this.
The gist of the problem is that you can either have development that is ethical, safe, manageable, legal, and controlled.... or you can development that is rapid, fluid and prone to appropiate and adapt any idea that fits the bill.
Or you can have development that's rapid and fluid and can appropriate and adapt useful ideas, and is also safe and ethical. "Manageable" and "controlled" sound like they're only useful if you're large enough to have "outsider" shareholders, and "Legal" just requires fixing (removing?) the patent system.
It is impossible to have both.
Drop "controlled" and probably "manageable", and I think you get something like Sillicon Valley is/was.
That is, pretty succinctly, the problem with calculating lost revenue by adding up all of the pirated copies...
It's one of the problems. Another one is people who download large batches of stuff and sort out the crap later - if they had to pay up front they'd be putting some amount more effort into filtering out the crap beforehand.
IP law, in the form of author's privileges, appeared as early as the 15th century in the west, following the invention of the movable type printing press.
It looks like it actually started as publisher's privileges:
Second, Gutenberg's development of movable type and the development and spread of the printing press made mass reproduction of printed works quick and much cheaper than ever before. Before printing, the process of copying a work could be nearly as labor intensive and expensive as creating the original, and was largely relegated to monastic scribes. It appears that publishers, rather than authors, were the first to seek restrictions on the copying of printed works. Given that publishers of music and films in particular commonly now obtain the copyright from a creator (although rarely a book author) as a condition of mass reproduction of a work, one of the criticisms of the current system is that it benefits publishers more than it does creators.
It also sounds like one of the early purposes was censorship:
In 1557, the English monarch, Mary I, chartered a London guild of printers, bookbinders, and booksellers known as the Stationers' Company, probably in an attempt to prevent the spread of the Protestant Reformation. Only Guild members were allowed to practice the art of printing and the master and wardens of the society were empowered to search, seize, and burn all prohibited books, and to imprison any person found to be printing without a license. In return for their role in preventing the publication of books deemed heretical or seditious, the Guild's members enjoyed the economic benefits of a monopoly over the printing industry. From 1557 to 1641, the English Crown exercised authority over printing and the Stationers' Company through the Star Chamber. After the abolition of the Star Chamber in 1641, the English Parliament continued to extend the Stationers' Company's censorship/monopoly arrangement through a series of ordinances and Licensing Acts between 1643 and 1692.
...and modern copyright came about when the law granting the Stationers their power expired and they needed to obtain a new one.
DNSCurve encrypts connections. This has per-byte overhead, plus per-connection overhead which can (mostly?) be made into per-peer overhead with caching. DNSSEC doesn't
Per-byte cost of what? Traffic or time?
With Sec, you have to validate signature(hash(data)). That's a per-byte time overhead for the hash function. Symmetric encryption is similar. Assymetric encryption is always (well, almost always) applied to a symmetric key which is used to encrypt the data; symmetric encryption has performance characteristics much like hash functions: per-byte processing, 1-to-1 size ratio between input and output.
Extra per-byte CPU cost on the server (and client/caches) to do the encryption. Validating signature(hash(data)) is likely more expensive as a public-key operation (similar to the per-connection/peer part of the DNSCurve overhead), but is client-side where it doesn't matter... except it also probably happens on caches, so I guess DNSSEC would put a (slightly?) higher (CPU) load on caches (and clients) and a lower load on servers.
The DNSSEC and https/SSL certificate systems are completely different.
I mean, you *could* use https/SSL to get secure DNS via port 443 right now, all it would take would be a few lines in Apache. Now convince the rest of the world to follow your lead....
DNSSEC (and DNSCurve) are only as good as the clients that adopt it.
Huh?
The idea is that instead of paying a CA to give you a SSL certificate, you generate your own and put the hash in a DNS record. With DNSSEC, this means that your SSL certificate is effectively signed by your DNSSEC key, with a chain going back to the keys for the root zone. This eliminates the need for CAs (unless you use the EV certs, that map to a real-world identity that browsers will usually show people), and even gets rid of the problem of bad signers that give out certs they shouldn't.
I'd like to see some discussion around the relative merits of DNSSEC v. DNSCurve.
With DNSSEC, it's the data that's authenticated. With DNSCurve, it appears to be the server. Does DNSCurve protect against a meddling cache, or does it require all queries to be processed by the authoritative server or a trustable cache?
DNSCurve encrypts connections. This has per-byte overhead, plus per-connection overhead which can (mostly?) be made into per-peer overhead with caching. DNSSEC doesn't, so someone could potentially see what records you look up (and save themselves the trouble of having to look at which IP you connect to next, I suppose?).
TFA says the delay is related to the size of the zones, so I'd guess it's related to increased hardware and bandwidth requirements. I can double my computing power with a trip to walmart, and double my bandwidth with a call to Comcast and probably a reset of the cable modem... Verisign might have a bit more difficulty.
Because when released it will reduce the profit from their certificate signing business, as people can get end-to-end public key encryption just by updating their DNS entry.
Maybe this is the real reason behind the "Extended Validation" certificates they're pushing? Those include some verification of your real-world identity (like I thought regular certs were always supposed to have...), so they can't be replaced by dnssec.
Or maybe they've just realized that it's necessary and inevitable, and they have to participate regardless. Because if they get left behind, they get lots of bad press for allowing.com domains to be spoofed and maybe even lose their nice fat tld contracts.
Slashdot Mirror
I'd like some anti-Microsoft news that at least appears reputable, and not overly sensationalized "ZOMG Balmer blew up M$ eats babies" crap like the stuff I've seen here for the past few weeks.
You're new around here, aren't you?
Or more likely, been around long enough to get tired of all the childish crap and instead want sane discussions about what happened and sane arguments over what to do about it.
Revision control != backup.
Revision control > backup.
Especially with certain distributed versioning systems that give everyone a copy of the full history. But even without that, there's the up-to-date copy on people's dev machines plus the history on the server, which would be about as good as having one normal backup that's guaranteed to be whichever version you were looking for.
If the company you are suing is incorporated in one state, and you, the plaintiff, is in another - can you sue in a third state that has no party resident within it
I think it depends on where "they" (is "they" the company suing or being sued? Or both?) do business, not just where they're incorporated. If my company is based in Delaware and yours is based in California, and we meet in Kansas to actually do business, why wouldn't we be able to use the Kansas courts if one of us got ripped off? That would be where the supposed ripping-off actually happened.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FastTrack - p2p network used by KaZaA
You didn't LOOK at the graph, did you? That's my citation.
This is the last 2 years, with that "almost completely VERTICAL" drop.
This is a 2 year span at 1929, that little tiny blip on the left of your zoomed out chart. Notice how it's actually more vertical than the current drop?
This is your chart, redrawn to have a log scale vertical axis instead of linear. It looks like "now" is roughly comparable to 1938 or the early 1970s.
Classical economics cannot explain what is happening right now.
Because if it could, it would also have predicted it, and "they" could have used that knowledge to prevent this mess.
Or maybe it's more a case of "I want to believe", where we had a "new economy" that didn't follow the old well-known rules.
It's without precedent.
[citation needed]
There is a little graph I would like to show you...
Are you seriously trying to claim that the stock markets have never crashed before?
In financial markets, everybody doing the same thing is the classic recipe for a bubble and inevitable bust.
Citation? Booms and busts are caused by, respectively, expansion and contraction of the money supply (usually in the form of bank credit), often accompanied by manipulated interest rates. The formulas used by lots of investing firms could cause clusters of errors, but the extent of types of companies (and governments) affected points to a more Austrian-style, systemic boom/bust rather than a single-(important-)sector miscalculation.
It could be that, or it could just be mass stupidity ("a million lemmings can't be wrong"). Or probably some combination of both.
Lenevo is NOT taking the same components as found in a desktop machine and repackaging them. When you go from Desktop to Laptop almost everything changes. Everything needs to be super fast, but weigh as little as possible and consume very low power. The CPU used, the North and South Bridge, and various other ICs and chipsets are different . They cost more. Everything cost more. Manufacturing costs are higher. Engineering costs are much higher, because they need people who understand all of this.
Yes, exactly.
So no , the cost is not "just for mobility".
WTF? That pretty much directly contradicts everything you just said.
It depends on how competitive the market is, how profitable the cellular companies currently are, and probably a few other things.
If the market is not competitive at all (perfect monopoly), the price is probably fixed at whatever generates the most revenue and won't change.
If the cellular companies aren't making enough profit (result of perfect competition), they'll need to raise prices to cover the fees or go bust.
Reality is somewhere in the middle, I'd personally guess somewhat closer to the "monopoly" end due to needing to buy spectrum and such. So the prices will go up some, and profits will go down some (probably slightly more, because of limited competition).
[snip "copyrights make content creation a viable business model"]
So where are the studies showing that this actually works in practice, that creative output as a whole has increased (quantity or quality) due to copyrights?
How did playwrights/composers make a living before copyright (especially given that there were people who could watch/listen to a performance and remember it well enough to duplicate it)?
How is it that some publishers make money selling copies of government reports (which are public domain)?
An intelligently designed biological system capable of evolution.
Gee, that's never been done before.
But there do seem to be evolved biological systems capable of intelligent design.
That sounds pretty similar, it's gotta count for something.
Check the source code in HTML
second url is listed as "http://www.cdsmodel.com./"
remove the period/dot after "com"
That's the entire point, the way DNS works all names actually end with a '.'. But because it's always there, it can be implicit. What probably happened is that somebody screwed up their domain-based virtual hosting somehow due to not understanding this.
Except that there genuinely is a limit to the rate of growth in the global economy.
Which is...?
The Chinese getting richer actually does have a negative impact on the United States.
The rate at which the Chinese economy is growing is faster than the rate at which the global economy is growing.
The difference between the rate of global expansion and the rate of chinese expansion is growth that is lost by everybody else.
So while the economy is not a zero sum game you can still have the growth of one economy have a negative impact on others.
The economy is also not a fixed-sum game; China growing faster makes the global economy grow faster, rather than making the US economy grow slower.
The gist of the problem is that you can either have development that is ethical, safe, manageable, legal, and controlled.... or you can development that is rapid, fluid and prone to appropiate and adapt any idea that fits the bill.
Or you can have development that's rapid and fluid and can appropriate and adapt useful ideas, and is also safe and ethical. "Manageable" and "controlled" sound like they're only useful if you're large enough to have "outsider" shareholders, and "Legal" just requires fixing (removing?) the patent system.
It is impossible to have both.
Drop "controlled" and probably "manageable", and I think you get something like Sillicon Valley is/was.
That is, pretty succinctly, the problem with calculating lost revenue by adding up all of the pirated copies...
It's one of the problems. Another one is people who download large batches of stuff and sort out the crap later - if they had to pay up front they'd be putting some amount more effort into filtering out the crap beforehand.
IP law, in the form of author's privileges, appeared as early as the 15th century in the west, following the invention of the movable type printing press.
It looks like it actually started as publisher's privileges:
It also sounds like one of the early purposes was censorship:
DNSCurve encrypts connections. This has per-byte overhead, plus per-connection overhead which can (mostly?) be made into per-peer overhead with caching. DNSSEC doesn't
Per-byte cost of what? Traffic or time?
With Sec, you have to validate signature(hash(data)). That's a per-byte time overhead for the hash function. Symmetric encryption is similar. Assymetric encryption is always (well, almost always) applied to a symmetric key which is used to encrypt the data; symmetric encryption has performance characteristics much like hash functions: per-byte processing, 1-to-1 size ratio between input and output.
Extra per-byte CPU cost on the server (and client/caches) to do the encryption. Validating signature(hash(data)) is likely more expensive as a public-key operation (similar to the per-connection/peer part of the DNSCurve overhead), but is client-side where it doesn't matter... except it also probably happens on caches, so I guess DNSSEC would put a (slightly?) higher (CPU) load on caches (and clients) and a lower load on servers.
Copyright is good, and we need it.
Has anyone actually shown that overall creative output increased as a result of the adoption of copyright, like the theories say is should have?
The DNSSEC and https/SSL certificate systems are completely different.
I mean, you *could* use https/SSL to get secure DNS via port 443 right now, all it would take would be a few lines in Apache. Now convince the rest of the world to follow your lead....
DNSSEC (and DNSCurve) are only as good as the clients that adopt it.
Huh?
The idea is that instead of paying a CA to give you a SSL certificate, you generate your own and put the hash in a DNS record. With DNSSEC, this means that your SSL certificate is effectively signed by your DNSSEC key, with a chain going back to the keys for the root zone. This eliminates the need for CAs (unless you use the EV certs, that map to a real-world identity that browsers will usually show people), and even gets rid of the problem of bad signers that give out certs they shouldn't.
I'd like to see some discussion around the relative merits of DNSSEC v. DNSCurve.
With DNSSEC, it's the data that's authenticated. With DNSCurve, it appears to be the server. Does DNSCurve protect against a meddling cache, or does it require all queries to be processed by the authoritative server or a trustable cache?
DNSCurve encrypts connections. This has per-byte overhead, plus per-connection overhead which can (mostly?) be made into per-peer overhead with caching. DNSSEC doesn't, so someone could potentially see what records you look up (and save themselves the trouble of having to look at which IP you connect to next, I suppose?).
And probably much more...
What takes so long? Why not now?
TFA says the delay is related to the size of the zones, so I'd guess it's related to increased hardware and bandwidth requirements. I can double my computing power with a trip to walmart, and double my bandwidth with a call to Comcast and probably a reset of the cable modem... Verisign might have a bit more difficulty.
Because when released it will reduce the profit from their certificate signing business, as people can get end-to-end public key encryption just by updating their DNS entry.
Maybe this is the real reason behind the "Extended Validation" certificates they're pushing? Those include some verification of your real-world identity (like I thought regular certs were always supposed to have...), so they can't be replaced by dnssec.
Or maybe they've just realized that it's necessary and inevitable, and they have to participate regardless. Because if they get left behind, they get lots of bad press for allowing .com domains to be spoofed and maybe even lose their nice fat tld contracts.
They need time to figure out how to profit from the deployment.
Very funny. If that was the hold-up, they wouldn't be promising or planning anything.