This is all Microsoft spin. Vista should have had less flaws than XP in XP's LAST year, not XP's first year, since they had the XP model to build upon.
It will be easier for the student to win this case if he was smart enough not to use his own name, nickname, myspace page name, or personal e-mail address name as his [name]@kazaa.com file sharing nick.
Instead, use the name of the jock down the hall that you hate anyway.
I hope you see the overall point of this post is that encryption does not provide a quick and easy solution and that content filtering is more complex then that.
I am not going to reply with nearly as many words as you've used to educate us in general about passing messages on the Internet. Instead, just consider:
In order to filter and prevent the transfer of unauthorized copyrighted content across the internet, you need to be able to identify that exact content. Because audio and video data comes in different formats, compression ratios, even different amplitudes created by different codecs, an overall audio or video "fingerprint" must be created and compared to a database of copyrighted fingerprints. You can't do this unless you can see the exact data, and you can't see the exact data if it is encrypted beyond your ability to decode. If you intend to simply block all "suspicious" content, or take the approach that if I Can't Read It I'll Simply Block It, all hell is going to rain down upon you.
In summary, you can't know what to block unless you can read it during transmission, and you can't read it during transmission if it's strongly encrypted. Hence attempts to provide effective internet filtering of copyrighted material will be ineffective against trivial-to-implement strong encryption, and is doomed to fail. QED.
Anonymity was never part of this filtering equation.
IE7 is already a problem. ASP pages generated in Visual Studio 2005 (the latest version) that work perfectly well in IE6, break in IE7. If Microsoft wanted to provide a proper solution, IE8 would, by default, render VS 2005 generated ASP pages at least as well as IE6 does. When Microsoft already isn't compatible with itself, it shouldn't be going off in additional new directions!
they aren't moving anywhere until they discuss this with their customers.
If this is true, then it isn't going to happen. What customer is going to say, "Hey, block some of the applications I could otherwise use with this broadband pipe I pay for."
Even if a customer isn't using it at the moment, they won't be in favor of blocking it since they might want it in the future.
If this is true, then it will never happen at AT&T, and they were just blowing smoke to appease everyone since they know their filtering solution is impossible anyway. You can't filter what you can't read, and you can't read strongly encrypted packets - end of discussion.
I remember Bobby Fischer once provided chess problems to Boy's Life magazine. It was a generous thing for him to do, and was my first exposure to the problem-solving side of chess itself.
As for Fischerandom Chess, I had a similar idea years ago where each side arranged their first row into their own preferred order, which was then revealed to their opponent at the commencement of play. It was a combining of Chess with Stratego that I called Modern Chess. Of course, my idea never caught on since, unlike Bobby Fischer, I Am Not A Chess Grand Master.
I'm sorry that his views over the later years became so hard to justify, or even understand in any rational sense, but I'll always remember my first contact with his name.
Still, even if they keep in in Windows Office, there's no question that it's gone in Mac Office 2008, and that's a huge monkey wrench in mixed business environments. While I'm sure that the Microsoft "solution" is to just have you dual-boot into Vista when you need to run VBA on your Mac, this seems to clearly be an attack on Apple's recent success, and could be a deal-breaker in a significant number of environments.
Or Mac users could refuse en masse to "upgrade" to this "downgrade".
This seems to be good case study on how to use information from sites like AppleInsider, 9to5mac.com and Ars Technica get a peek under the covers on future talks.
The biggest difference between the two markets is that Netflix Watch Now runs on XP/Vista(?), and Apple iTunes runs on Apple h/w. It's the Grand Canyon of all divides.
researchers have discovered a way to increase battery life tenfold...said the increased battery capacity
So which is it, life, or capacity? As I know those terms:
Life: the number of times the battery can be recharged to some approximation of its original capacity.
Capacity: The amount of energy, think amp/hours at the rated voltage, that the battery can deliver.
So does this battery provide 10X as many recharge cycles in service as normal batteries, or does it deliver 10X as much energy per volume or weight as normal batteries?
Of course, I want both, but don't expect to get it.
This announcement was misinterpreted by almost everyone. This was supposed to be titled: Roadmap for OOXML.
I had thought about titling it that, but needed something catchy so that the Slashdot moderators would accept my submission before someone else submitted a dup.
By 2038 I'd expect everyone to be on 64-bit processors, if not 128- or 256-bit hardware. Even at 64-bits, I won't live long enough for that clock to run out, although it will make some of my favorite hobbies (counting the number of atoms in the galaxy) a lot easier.
I'm beginning to think that a lot of the worry over old file formats becoming inaccessible in the future is overblown. With the continuing advances of emulation and virtualization technology, it seems highly unlikely that we'll lose all access to documents in old file formats.
Cannot agree with you here. Obviously you feel you can continue running Windows 98SE with Office 97 in a virtual partition essentially forever - and in that case, you probably can.
However, the moment you get to Windows XP and recent versions of Office, you hit the dreaded Product Activation bugaboo. Now you're dependent on MS, Adobe, or whomever to continue supporting activation servers as you migrate old software and operating systems to newer virtual platforms. Also EULA's that prevent using software in virtual environments exist. You may well find that running Office 2003 on Windows XP can't be done, legally at least, on the machine that follows your next one. Then where are you?
As DVD copying gets more practical, there will soon be no such things as copyrights on DVDs.
This is not correct. Copyrights don't disappear just because copying is easy. Copyrights never prevented copying. From the very beginning, you could copy by hand any copyrighted book. What copyrights allow is to seek damages against those who violate them. Only the copyright holder may freely sell their work for money in the open market. Others who try with unauthorized copies face civil penalties. So just because you can copy something doesn't mean that the idea of copyright has suddenly vanished.
Theres no need to move data already stored, the damage is caused by writes to flash, not reads.
The point of moving existing data is that the damage is done by writes. And long-term data has no writes performed to it. Therefore, for wear-leveling purposes, you would desirably wish to move the long-term data to a heavily written, but not yet failed, area of the flash, since it wouldn't be written again, freeing up the seldom-written, or even once-written, area for more use.
Slashdot Mirror
But what about all the rest of her body that was still running on the old immune system?
This is all Microsoft spin. Vista should have had less flaws than XP in XP's LAST year, not XP's first year, since they had the XP model to build upon.
Instead, use the name of the jock down the hall that you hate anyway.
Sue MIT for not protecting your student records properly. You can use that settlement money to pay off the RIAA.
I am not going to reply with nearly as many words as you've used to educate us in general about passing messages on the Internet. Instead, just consider:
In order to filter and prevent the transfer of unauthorized copyrighted content across the internet, you need to be able to identify that exact content. Because audio and video data comes in different formats, compression ratios, even different amplitudes created by different codecs, an overall audio or video "fingerprint" must be created and compared to a database of copyrighted fingerprints. You can't do this unless you can see the exact data, and you can't see the exact data if it is encrypted beyond your ability to decode. If you intend to simply block all "suspicious" content, or take the approach that if I Can't Read It I'll Simply Block It, all hell is going to rain down upon you.
In summary, you can't know what to block unless you can read it during transmission, and you can't read it during transmission if it's strongly encrypted. Hence attempts to provide effective internet filtering of copyrighted material will be ineffective against trivial-to-implement strong encryption, and is doomed to fail. QED.
Anonymity was never part of this filtering equation.
Real news will be hearing who wins, or continues the next round.
IE7 is already a problem. ASP pages generated in Visual Studio 2005 (the latest version) that work perfectly well in IE6, break in IE7. If Microsoft wanted to provide a proper solution, IE8 would, by default, render VS 2005 generated ASP pages at least as well as IE6 does. When Microsoft already isn't compatible with itself, it shouldn't be going off in additional new directions!
I note at the 20 meter point, that by your figures they're off by 5.5 feet. That's rather more than one significant digit.
If this is true, then it isn't going to happen. What customer is going to say, "Hey, block some of the applications I could otherwise use with this broadband pipe I pay for."
Even if a customer isn't using it at the moment, they won't be in favor of blocking it since they might want it in the future.
If this is true, then it will never happen at AT&T, and they were just blowing smoke to appease everyone since they know their filtering solution is impossible anyway. You can't filter what you can't read, and you can't read strongly encrypted packets - end of discussion.
20m = 60f
5m = 16f
Obviously meters shrink, or feet grow, the more you have of them.
As for Fischerandom Chess, I had a similar idea years ago where each side arranged their first row into their own preferred order, which was then revealed to their opponent at the commencement of play. It was a combining of Chess with Stratego that I called Modern Chess. Of course, my idea never caught on since, unlike Bobby Fischer, I Am Not A Chess Grand Master.
I'm sorry that his views over the later years became so hard to justify, or even understand in any rational sense, but I'll always remember my first contact with his name.
Or Mac users could refuse en masse to "upgrade" to this "downgrade".
Or you can just read the Fake Steve Jobs blog.
What??? Apple non-standard again!!!
And how long would it have taken to test that out first? Only guesses in minutes less than 5 accepted. Or couldn't you get the PS3 away from the kid?
Unless, of course, the settlement is 5 coupons for CD's.
Finally the end of the unlimited, undeliverable, service promises.
The biggest difference between the two markets is that Netflix Watch Now runs on XP/Vista(?), and Apple iTunes runs on Apple h/w. It's the Grand Canyon of all divides.
Curious how this only affects unlocked iPhones. Just who is that to the benefit of?
So which is it, life, or capacity? As I know those terms:
Life: the number of times the battery can be recharged to some approximation of its original capacity.
Capacity: The amount of energy, think amp/hours at the rated voltage, that the battery can deliver.
So does this battery provide 10X as many recharge cycles in service as normal batteries, or does it deliver 10X as much energy per volume or weight as normal batteries?
Of course, I want both, but don't expect to get it.
I had thought about titling it that, but needed something catchy so that the Slashdot moderators would accept my submission before someone else submitted a dup.
By 2038 I'd expect everyone to be on 64-bit processors, if not 128- or 256-bit hardware. Even at 64-bits, I won't live long enough for that clock to run out, although it will make some of my favorite hobbies (counting the number of atoms in the galaxy) a lot easier.
Cannot agree with you here. Obviously you feel you can continue running Windows 98SE with Office 97 in a virtual partition essentially forever - and in that case, you probably can.
However, the moment you get to Windows XP and recent versions of Office, you hit the dreaded Product Activation bugaboo. Now you're dependent on MS, Adobe, or whomever to continue supporting activation servers as you migrate old software and operating systems to newer virtual platforms. Also EULA's that prevent using software in virtual environments exist. You may well find that running Office 2003 on Windows XP can't be done, legally at least, on the machine that follows your next one. Then where are you?
This is not correct. Copyrights don't disappear just because copying is easy. Copyrights never prevented copying. From the very beginning, you could copy by hand any copyrighted book. What copyrights allow is to seek damages against those who violate them. Only the copyright holder may freely sell their work for money in the open market. Others who try with unauthorized copies face civil penalties. So just because you can copy something doesn't mean that the idea of copyright has suddenly vanished.
Actually they're the same after all. They're both equally bad for you - and part of the standard college kid diet.
The point of moving existing data is that the damage is done by writes. And long-term data has no writes performed to it. Therefore, for wear-leveling purposes, you would desirably wish to move the long-term data to a heavily written, but not yet failed, area of the flash, since it wouldn't be written again, freeing up the seldom-written, or even once-written, area for more use.