They can get a lot more than $25 from you if they can program you to buy useless crap. You cannot purchase your way out of ads, you just have to block them or boycott advertisers.
Why not? He doesn't get anything out of the prolonged litigation. The permanent injunction is not a loss, but just a way for Sony to save face. It's almost a way of paying Sony for crediting him and publicizing his discovery to such a wide audience. Basically a victory for Hotz and everyone who wanted to mod their hardware.
The grandparent mentioned the words 'AV software' and you lambast him for claiming it's the magical pill.
That was step 1 of his solution to secure Windows. I claimed, it does worse than nothing. It doesn't just fail to be a magical pill, it fails to do anything at all.
Windows is trivial to secure with a wealth of free services from MSFT SE to AVG to Comodo CIS to Avast.
Wow. Do you realize that AV software is largely ineffective against new viruses? Here is a typical scenario out of my life: a friend wants me to fix a Windows PC infected with a virus. Sometimes the virus is apparently racing the AV, and sometimes the AV is disabled. But there is always AV. So what good is it? The only useful feature of an AV software is that there is a slight chance it will behave unusually after the machine is infected, and so alert a user of an intrusion sometime in the past (that is, of course, only if the virus is destructive or buggy).
So on one hand you acknowledge that Windows is insecure by default, and should be secured. But to secure it, you want to install a piece of software that slows the computer down, while failing to prevent many viral infections.
You also fail to address the biggest issue with securing Windows: it is theoretically impossible. Because the software is proprietary, it is insecure by any sensible definition. It is insecure for you as the user, although it is made to provide "security" for Microsoft. Not for any technical reason, but solely because of Microsoft's greed, you have a backdoor in your OS that only Microsoft (you hope) can use. Whatever other security holes there are, you propose to fix with other proprietary programs, each having its own backdoor.
When Linux becomes a big enough target IT WILL BE PWNED.
Linux kernel will be pwned? As in, once Linux reaches X% desktop share, all of the sudden a bunch of kernel exploits will be found? How? The value of a kernel exploit today, either local or remote, is already enormous. If they are already found at the rate they are introduced, then what does the popularity have to do with it?
Or did you mean, Linux-based OSes will be owned? All of them at the same time? Or one in particular? And then which one? I am not surprised seeing Android in trouble: every android phone sold today is a proprietary platform, and the proprietors happen to be incompetent. This does not mean that we won't be able to install Debian or Slackware on a phone a few years from now and enjoy rock-solid security.
If it's the former, then they could just evaporate it and deal with the precipitate as solid waste.
If the entire stated power (4400 MW) of the late Fukushima 2 is converted with no loss into the chemical energy required to evaporate 55000 tons of water, then it will take (2257 [J/g] * 55000000000 [g] / 4400000000 [J/s] / 60 / 60) = 7.8, almost 8 hours to boil it all. Now, how much power can they realistically jam into the heaters on board of a tanker at sea? Probably orders of magnitude less than that. 10000, 100000 times less? So they have a bit of a problem doing it this way.
Clearly people are willing to pay for the service, or Netflix wouldn't be in business.
Of course. This is because using P2P can get one in a financial trouble, so a lot of people don't bother. I am saying, if it was known that non-commercial sharing is safe, then, first of all, more people would start sharing GiBs of data that they have, and so availability and quality would shoot WAY up from where it's now (and it's not too shabby now). P2P would very fast overtake the entire market because it is cheaper, faster, more robust, more private, all Free software solution, has one client for ALL media, and provides a better product.
Yes. If they don't punish non-commercial copying with insane damages, then BT, Gnutella, and direct downloads will become significantly more popular, and therefore robust, and end up taking ALL of their profits. Even if price of Netflix was zero, what would be the point of filling up forms and watching ads, when you can get better quality from some torrent or DD site?
Oh no no no. Jesus tells us, our body is our temple, so defiling it with drugs would be unethical. We can explain it much better if you come to our church, where we (and our underage children) drink sacrificial alcohol as a condition for the salvation of our soul.
Seriously, dude. A pot-related referendum in CA shows an almost-even split in public opinion. A murder-related referendum results are so obvious to anyone except you, we don't bother running it. You don't see a difference, really?
Drugs: hurt users mostly, or no one at all; considered ethical by large strata of the population; prohibition in democratic states is proven to be ineffective.
Murder: hurts others only; considered unethical by almost everyone everywhere; prohibition is proven to reduce the rate dramatically.
Apparent per capita ethanol consumption. If you read the papers linked to the Wiki, you will see that the estimates based on cirrhosis rates and on drunkenness arrests show a 10-20% improvement at best. Your figures come from retail, as far as I can tell, and it totally makes sense that right after prohibition has ended, the established underground market did not go away all at once, hence the dip in the apparent consumption. The actual consumption was not affected in any significant way.
I understand what you are saying, and I am OK with a post like yours. But yeah, when people post AC and say things like "I'm a professor of mathematics" and "Someone reverts all my edits", I smell nothing but a giant troll. I edit the Wiki every now and then, and if anyone ever axed my good edits, I would take pains to link to that asshole so that everyone can see that I was right and they were wrong. When people fail to link to their good work, I know they are complaining out of their ass.
I don't see "David Chalmers" ever editing this article. I can see a revert "at Chalmers[sic] request" though, which is kind of an opposite of what you describe. May be it's just another myth?
And is there a living professional philosopher who doesn't think that his/her Wiki page misrepresents his/her view? If rumors are true, what was Chalmers doing, editing his own page? If his own fans can't get him right on the Wiki, may be he should concentrate on improving the original sources.
Hahaha so funny. Nevermind the fact that the number of articles is steadilygrowing. It's more fun to bash "deletionism" without linking to any particular cases.
Of course not. And why post AC? Isn't it funny how people diss Wiki for "deletionism", but come short when it comes to linking to an instance? Why won't they link to an edit of theirs that got reverted and let ME decide if it's "deletionism" or plain good editing? Because they are full of crap.
I upload my public key when I register an account on/. When I post a comment,/. sends me a challenge, and I authenticate myself by solving it.
Say, you are a service provider who wants to authenticate me. If all you want is to make sure that I am the person who initiated the relationship, like in the example above, then there are no problems. If you want to authenticate me as a physical person, I have to show up SOMEWHERE. You could invite me for a chat yourself. Or you could get my public key from someone you trust, who invited me for a chat in the past. A bank in Australia may contact an agency it trusts in US and verify that a given PK corresponds to a physical person with a given name and a given photo. How is that worse than what we have now? With asymmetric authentication, it is entirely possible but never necessary to use a middle man.
From me. Like when I show up. Give me a problematic example.
Suppose I want to open a bank account. I don't know of a way to do it without showing up in person. So I show up in person, with a photo ID, with cash or a check from my employer, and leave my PK. No one can authorize transactions but the physical person who opened the account.
Suppose I want to ID myself to DMV. I have to show up for everything there. So I show up, have my picture taken, and leave my PK. The owner of the key is guaranteed to be the person on the photo.
A third party we both trust is required, or you'll just pretend to be whomever you want and I'll be left holding the bag.
I don't understand. What is wrong with asymmetric authentication? Once you matched me to my public key, you can treat every transaction with me as if I was in the room. I am so confident, in fact, in my ability to protect my identity, that I am willing to assume full damages in case my identity gets compromised. I can do that because the only realistic way to steal my identity is to punch my nose until I disclose my passphrase. And this is not a weakness of asymmetric authentication, but the limit of software security. No software will protect you from people who are already punching you (unless it's the software inside your laser-wielding guard-bot).
No one is obsessed with streaming, except for advertisers. Everyone else is perfectly content with "playing before download is finished". Mandatory streaming is the only way to deliver ads on every listen.
Are such "legal hacks" actually a good idea? They don't create a track-record of legal precedence, so its not a valid means of creating change in the legal system.
Here I used "hack" in an MIT way, meaning a legitimate ingenuity. There has been plenty of testing, and GPL held up in courts just fine.
Seriously, if you try to promote freedom and free code, you have to allow people to use it how they want.
Exactly. GPLed software can be freely run, studied, modified, and redistributed with modifications. Apple refuses to provide its users with these freedoms, so they cannot use GPLed software.
If you try to define what's allowed and try to get people to do or not to do what YOU want them, you aren't promoting free code. Your code is just as "bad" as proprietary code.
GPL only restricts your ability to take freedom away from your end user. Yes, GPLes software is "bad" for you if you are intending to take the freedoms from your end user. GPL is not "bad" for the software's user in any way shape or form, only for those who would rather abuse copyright and derive monopoly profits from other people's charitable work (e.g. Apple from BSD). Do you seriously not get it?
GPL is like promoting free speech until someone saids something YOU don't like.
And now even a semblance of a rational argument is gone and what you have left is hot air. GPL has nothing to do with freedom of expression (just like copyright, according to the US Supreme Court, has nothing to do with freedom of speech), and everything to do with building a hedge around the public domain. The robber barons stole our public domain by making the copyright terms practically infinite and applying obscene statutory damages to non-commercial violators. Licenses like GPL are legal hacks which help to restore the balance present in the original copyright legislation: creators get some VERY limited distribution monopoly, everyone else gets more and better software.
Hell, I don't even have a problem with non-free game code, as long as I run it on a dedicated piece of hardware (like a console), completely isolated from any computing that actually matters. It's only a toy.
About freaking time. Moon is perfect as the first shipyard for interplanetary craft: shallow gravity well, no atmosphere, abundant solar energy, abundant water, close to Earth, natural radiation shelters with near-constant temperature (lavatubes). Imagine also an optical telescope in a crater near the pole. Astronomy geeks would fight in an octagon to get some time on that, even without any radiation shielding.
Slashdot Mirror
They can get a lot more than $25 from you if they can program you to buy useless crap. You cannot purchase your way out of ads, you just have to block them or boycott advertisers.
Why not? He doesn't get anything out of the prolonged litigation. The permanent injunction is not a loss, but just a way for Sony to save face. It's almost a way of paying Sony for crediting him and publicizing his discovery to such a wide audience. Basically a victory for Hotz and everyone who wanted to mod their hardware.
The grandparent mentioned the words 'AV software' and you lambast him for claiming it's the magical pill.
That was step 1 of his solution to secure Windows. I claimed, it does worse than nothing. It doesn't just fail to be a magical pill, it fails to do anything at all.
And what does 'proprietary = insecure' mean?
I should have said "closed source".
Windows is trivial to secure with a wealth of free services from MSFT SE to AVG to Comodo CIS to Avast.
Wow. Do you realize that AV software is largely ineffective against new viruses? Here is a typical scenario out of my life: a friend wants me to fix a Windows PC infected with a virus. Sometimes the virus is apparently racing the AV, and sometimes the AV is disabled. But there is always AV. So what good is it? The only useful feature of an AV software is that there is a slight chance it will behave unusually after the machine is infected, and so alert a user of an intrusion sometime in the past (that is, of course, only if the virus is destructive or buggy).
So on one hand you acknowledge that Windows is insecure by default, and should be secured. But to secure it, you want to install a piece of software that slows the computer down, while failing to prevent many viral infections.
You also fail to address the biggest issue with securing Windows: it is theoretically impossible. Because the software is proprietary, it is insecure by any sensible definition. It is insecure for you as the user, although it is made to provide "security" for Microsoft. Not for any technical reason, but solely because of Microsoft's greed, you have a backdoor in your OS that only Microsoft (you hope) can use. Whatever other security holes there are, you propose to fix with other proprietary programs, each having its own backdoor.
When Linux becomes a big enough target IT WILL BE PWNED.
Linux kernel will be pwned? As in, once Linux reaches X% desktop share, all of the sudden a bunch of kernel exploits will be found? How? The value of a kernel exploit today, either local or remote, is already enormous. If they are already found at the rate they are introduced, then what does the popularity have to do with it?
Or did you mean, Linux-based OSes will be owned? All of them at the same time? Or one in particular? And then which one? I am not surprised seeing Android in trouble: every android phone sold today is a proprietary platform, and the proprietors happen to be incompetent. This does not mean that we won't be able to install Debian or Slackware on a phone a few years from now and enjoy rock-solid security.
This is trivially true, due to the nature of Microsoft.
If it's the former, then they could just evaporate it and deal with the precipitate as solid waste.
If the entire stated power (4400 MW) of the late Fukushima 2 is converted with no loss into the chemical energy required to evaporate 55000 tons of water, then it will take (2257 [J/g] * 55000000000 [g] / 4400000000 [J/s] / 60 / 60) = 7.8, almost 8 hours to boil it all. Now, how much power can they realistically jam into the heaters on board of a tanker at sea? Probably orders of magnitude less than that. 10000, 100000 times less? So they have a bit of a problem doing it this way.
You do realize that you are probably replying to a bot?
Clearly people are willing to pay for the service, or Netflix wouldn't be in business.
Of course. This is because using P2P can get one in a financial trouble, so a lot of people don't bother. I am saying, if it was known that non-commercial sharing is safe, then, first of all, more people would start sharing GiBs of data that they have, and so availability and quality would shoot WAY up from where it's now (and it's not too shabby now). P2P would very fast overtake the entire market because it is cheaper, faster, more robust, more private, all Free software solution, has one client for ALL media, and provides a better product.
Yes. If they don't punish non-commercial copying with insane damages, then BT, Gnutella, and direct downloads will become significantly more popular, and therefore robust, and end up taking ALL of their profits. Even if price of Netflix was zero, what would be the point of filling up forms and watching ads, when you can get better quality from some torrent or DD site?
Oh no no no. Jesus tells us, our body is our temple, so defiling it with drugs would be unethical. We can explain it much better if you come to our church, where we (and our underage children) drink sacrificial alcohol as a condition for the salvation of our soul.
Seriously, dude. A pot-related referendum in CA shows an almost-even split in public opinion. A murder-related referendum results are so obvious to anyone except you, we don't bother running it. You don't see a difference, really?
Drugs: hurt users mostly, or no one at all; considered ethical by large strata of the population; prohibition in democratic states is proven to be ineffective.
Murder: hurts others only; considered unethical by almost everyone everywhere; prohibition is proven to reduce the rate dramatically.
Apparent per capita ethanol consumption. If you read the papers linked to the Wiki, you will see that the estimates based on cirrhosis rates and on drunkenness arrests show a 10-20% improvement at best. Your figures come from retail, as far as I can tell, and it totally makes sense that right after prohibition has ended, the established underground market did not go away all at once, hence the dip in the apparent consumption. The actual consumption was not affected in any significant way.
I understand what you are saying, and I am OK with a post like yours. But yeah, when people post AC and say things like "I'm a professor of mathematics" and "Someone reverts all my edits", I smell nothing but a giant troll. I edit the Wiki every now and then, and if anyone ever axed my good edits, I would take pains to link to that asshole so that everyone can see that I was right and they were wrong. When people fail to link to their good work, I know they are complaining out of their ass.
http://www.russianspaceweb.com/elektro.html
I don't see "David Chalmers" ever editing this article. I can see a revert "at Chalmers[sic] request" though, which is kind of an opposite of what you describe. May be it's just another myth?
And is there a living professional philosopher who doesn't think that his/her Wiki page misrepresents his/her view? If rumors are true, what was Chalmers doing, editing his own page? If his own fans can't get him right on the Wiki, may be he should concentrate on improving the original sources.
Hahaha so funny. Nevermind the fact that the number of articles is steadily growing. It's more fun to bash "deletionism" without linking to any particular cases.
Of course not. And why post AC? Isn't it funny how people diss Wiki for "deletionism", but come short when it comes to linking to an instance? Why won't they link to an edit of theirs that got reverted and let ME decide if it's "deletionism" or plain good editing? Because they are full of crap.
I upload my public key when I register an account on /. When I post a comment, /. sends me a challenge, and I authenticate myself by solving it.
Say, you are a service provider who wants to authenticate me. If all you want is to make sure that I am the person who initiated the relationship, like in the example above, then there are no problems. If you want to authenticate me as a physical person, I have to show up SOMEWHERE. You could invite me for a chat yourself. Or you could get my public key from someone you trust, who invited me for a chat in the past. A bank in Australia may contact an agency it trusts in US and verify that a given PK corresponds to a physical person with a given name and a given photo. How is that worse than what we have now? With asymmetric authentication, it is entirely possible but never necessary to use a middle man.
From me. Like when I show up. Give me a problematic example.
Suppose I want to open a bank account. I don't know of a way to do it without showing up in person. So I show up in person, with a photo ID, with cash or a check from my employer, and leave my PK. No one can authorize transactions but the physical person who opened the account.
Suppose I want to ID myself to DMV. I have to show up for everything there. So I show up, have my picture taken, and leave my PK. The owner of the key is guaranteed to be the person on the photo.
A third party we both trust is required, or you'll just pretend to be whomever you want and I'll be left holding the bag.
I don't understand. What is wrong with asymmetric authentication? Once you matched me to my public key, you can treat every transaction with me as if I was in the room. I am so confident, in fact, in my ability to protect my identity, that I am willing to assume full damages in case my identity gets compromised. I can do that because the only realistic way to steal my identity is to punch my nose until I disclose my passphrase. And this is not a weakness of asymmetric authentication, but the limit of software security. No software will protect you from people who are already punching you (unless it's the software inside your laser-wielding guard-bot).
No one is obsessed with streaming, except for advertisers. Everyone else is perfectly content with "playing before download is finished". Mandatory streaming is the only way to deliver ads on every listen.
Are such "legal hacks" actually a good idea? They don't create a track-record of legal precedence, so its not a valid means of creating change in the legal system.
Here I used "hack" in an MIT way, meaning a legitimate ingenuity. There has been plenty of testing, and GPL held up in courts just fine.
Seriously, if you try to promote freedom and free code, you have to allow people to use it how they want.
Exactly. GPLed software can be freely run, studied, modified, and redistributed with modifications. Apple refuses to provide its users with these freedoms, so they cannot use GPLed software.
If you try to define what's allowed and try to get people to do or not to do what YOU want them, you aren't promoting free code. Your code is just as "bad" as proprietary code.
GPL only restricts your ability to take freedom away from your end user. Yes, GPLes software is "bad" for you if you are intending to take the freedoms from your end user. GPL is not "bad" for the software's user in any way shape or form, only for those who would rather abuse copyright and derive monopoly profits from other people's charitable work (e.g. Apple from BSD). Do you seriously not get it?
GPL is like promoting free speech until someone saids something YOU don't like.
And now even a semblance of a rational argument is gone and what you have left is hot air. GPL has nothing to do with freedom of expression (just like copyright, according to the US Supreme Court, has nothing to do with freedom of speech), and everything to do with building a hedge around the public domain. The robber barons stole our public domain by making the copyright terms practically infinite and applying obscene statutory damages to non-commercial violators. Licenses like GPL are legal hacks which help to restore the balance present in the original copyright legislation: creators get some VERY limited distribution monopoly, everyone else gets more and better software.
Hell, I don't even have a problem with non-free game code, as long as I run it on a dedicated piece of hardware (like a console), completely isolated from any computing that actually matters. It's only a toy.
About freaking time. Moon is perfect as the first shipyard for interplanetary craft: shallow gravity well, no atmosphere, abundant solar energy, abundant water, close to Earth, natural radiation shelters with near-constant temperature (lava tubes). Imagine also an optical telescope in a crater near the pole. Astronomy geeks would fight in an octagon to get some time on that, even without any radiation shielding.