Indeed, when embarking on a journey of a thousand miles that begins with a single step...
throw your baggage to the ground and wallow in the mud, because that one step wouldn't have made much difference anyway.
Also, when deploying new software at a Fortune 500, if informed that some systems will be upgraded before others...
throw your cd case to the ground and wallow on the buffed tile floor, because if you can't solve a massive problem all at once in an instant, it's not worth solving at all ever.
Once upon a time, Microsoft went slap happy with the Back-Office moniker. They hurridly affixed it to many a disparate product for reasons unknown.
Days past, PR staff churned and version numbers changed in format, length and value.
Eventually, Microsoft realized that back-office sounds like back-orifice. So, they went slap super happy with the.net moniker. They hurridly affixed it over stale back-office stickers and even on products that had been lucky enough to avoid the officially orificially excrementitious sounding branding the last time around.
Days past, PR staff churned and version numbers changed in format, length and value.
The most brilliant of the Microsoft Marketeers realized that.net doesn't mean anything. Bill himself saw this to be true and hurridly, desperately affixed 'live' to many a disparate product. The rest he called 'vista'.
Days past, PR staff churned and version numbers changed in format, length and value...
But it's not really actionable by a money trawling lawyer. The SEC certainly doesn't care. Would you care to elaborate on that? This suit may well be the first that the SEC has heard of the alleged deception. Furthermore, it is being actioned on. I suppose it follows that plantiff's lawyers aren't money trawling...
Bingo! This is how the lawyer gets his and the only reason we would ever hear anything about it. I don't see shareholders benefitting in any way shape or form. Well, it is a shareholder lawsuit leveled against alleged corporate malfeasance. The shareholders didn't give up their shares when they chose to be represented by a legal firm - and they will certainly benefit if they win.
it would take a lot of the current power away from special interest lobby groups (read:big business), as they would have to convince a large slice of the population on how to vote The special interests would only need to convince a majority of the people who happen to vote on a particular issue, and there would be a huge number of issues and an even larger number of votes. I worry that the present voting minority would further dwindle and I worry that, seeing as how they already often select very poor representatives every other year, their direct input on the vast but important minutiae of the legislature's day to day business would be even more incompetent.
Perhaps if we limited voting privilege to the landed gentry...
Users with old accounts see flickr adverts but not yahoo mail adverts, and they are less likely to be sucked into using other yahoo services. Even though this move will drive away some users, bless their hearts, it may still be profitable: yahoo id users see more adverts than legacy users.
Assuming that legacy users don't otherwise use yahoo, that 1/3rd of the legacy users will never use flickr again and that yahoo id users see 2x the adverts, this will be a win. Of course, some stubborn people don't like being overwhelmed by in-your-face space-wasting flashy yahoo advertisements. For them, there is gmail and, well, not flickr.
That is commendable - rather than offhandedly dismissing wikipedia, your prof researched it and his efforts payed off: he learned to employ it as an instructional tool to teach critical thinking skills. I often hear academia and employers balefully lamenting graduates' apparent lack of critical thinking aptitude, especially with regard to graduates' ability to discern the motivations of authors and the integrity of their arguments.
Perhaps students would be more comfortable and less distracted in their pursuit of their most wanting ability if they could focus on it in a familiar and relevant context. I will not say that the patience one develops when he is required to scrutize and compare esoteric tomes isn't useful - and it's certainly helpful for someone to plow through ancient manuscripts searching for quotes once or twice in his lifetime. However, students will obviously regard such one-off pursuits as entirely disconnected from their lives - as existing in a separate Byzantine universe of irrelevancy that would intruige and beguile if only it weren't intollerably boring and the exclusive preserve of tedious savants who publish erudite volumes that eventually age so very much that new generations of savants aren't embarrassed to name them as primary sources in their own hide-bound works. Those tedious professors live in a universe that students briefly pass through and immediately, happily and enthusiastically purge from their minds at the very earliest opportunity.
It really is tragic. If only those students would broaden their horizons, they would recognize that the critical thinking skills they acquired as they poored over many a dusty opus of forgotten lore are directly applicable to their daily, unending reading of wikipedia.
From an idealistic point of view, it's "wrong." because, as anyone here knows, IT people are the smartest, sharpest people ever to walk the planet who KNOW how the world works, REALLY. They deserve to become CEO, and if they don't, there's something wrong with the system, not them, and certainly not their attitude. Is that a meme?
Swap out my PC any time you want... The bottom line is that there's a heirarchy Nobody is suggesting that low-level techs ought to be made CEOs. The guys we are talking about manage large numbers of people and are aware of the business situation. This awareness is essential - without it, they would have no clue what impact their decisions have upon the business as a whole. They would be unable to make business cases for the strategies they pitch and, being without understanding of the relationship between the tech and the business, totally unable to make informed choices. As you descend the heirarchy beneath the CIO, you encounter people with the luxury of being narrow minded.
Putting aside trollish prejudice, I do honestly wonder whether CEOs tend to have more crossover tech knowledge than CIOs have business knowledge. Both ought to have an educated appreciation of the other's concerns if they hope to effectively run their company...
Taking that prejudice back up, perhaps the more practical question is: when the CEO was schmoozing future board members at Wharton, Harvard, Yale or Princeton, where was the CIO? I always hear that social networking is really, actually - forget-all-that-other-stuff - business leaders' #1 skill and priority...
The comment regarding people being "anti-IP" came much later and was leveled at the original poster and at many on slashdot. There can be no disputing that this is precisely the position of a large part of the community on slashdot. I took that as being leveled against anyone who disagreed with you. Can we agree that wanting Fairplay opened does not make one anti-DRM and that being anti-DRM does not make one anti-IP? Because it sounds like you are trying to say that anyone who wants Fairplay opened is an anti-IP slashdotter, which is the strawman I've been pointing out. Avoid bemoaning and arguing against your idea of prevailing slashdot opinion if you want your positions to even appear genuine.
What you were trying to say is that anyone that disagrees with your "security through obscurity does not work" mantra must either be ignorant or is deliberately trying to be deceptive. It was retaliatory;p Nonetheless, that "security through obscurity fails" isn't a bad maxim to keep in mind. In this case, for example, two independant parties have reverse engineered the system, obscure though it remains.
We are definitely talking about an application of asymmetric encryption - where the recipient's key is kept hidden from the recipient. The soundness of the DRM scheme rests upon the security of this key, as you rightly point out. Nonetheless, opening the DRM scheme does not reveal this key. Uh, yes it does. The effective soundness of the scheme relies: on the security of the security of the keys, forcing many-would be hackers to re-implement the entire algorithm, and/or preventing the digital stream from being easily captured. Would you mind elaborating on how specs for the scheme reveal the recipient key? (as opposed to, yet again, arguing against something nobody said)
Repeating a mantra without truly comprehending what you're talking about is sophomoric and, to be blunt, retarded. Sounds reasonable.
this is most definitely not simply "encryption"... Any idiot that knows jack about programming could trivially alter the code to save the keys to make it accessible to other applications or simply dump out the data in its unencrypted format. You keep saying that Fairplay DRM doesn't use encryption, but it's not true. We are definitely talking about an application of asymmetric encryption - where the recipient's key is kept hidden from the recipient. The soundness of the DRM scheme rests upon the security of this key, as you rightly point out. Nonetheless, opening the DRM scheme does not reveal this key.
As for the labels, they have a lot more leverage than you acknowledge. I acknowledge that they've been extremely vocal about their desire to introduce variable per-track pricing but that tracks still cost 99c. Furthermore, Apple does happen to be, by far, the largest online music store.
As I said before, it is you who fails to understand the issue. As to the "strawman", you obviously have no idea what the f*** that even means. I am directly critizing their regulation. You may disagree, but it's only a strawman argument if I put words/arguments in their mouth. While you're at it, you may want to look up ad hominem as this is precisely what you're attempting. From wikipedia:
"To "set up a straw man" or "set up a straw-man argument" is to create a position that is easy to refute, then attribute that position to the opponent." You're original argument, that those who wish to open up Fairplay are anti-IP, frames your opponent's position as strictly anti-IP. Sure, that's easy to refute - it's also not what your opponent advocates.
Again, from wikipedia:
An ad hominem argument... consists of replying to an argument by attacking or appealing to the person making the argument, rather than by addressing the substance of the argument. Being strictly topical and in critiquing the substance and form of your argument, but not its proponent, my argument is by definition is not ad hominem. Allow me to quote from a geniune ad hominem argument: "as to the "strawman", you obviously have no idea what the f*** that even means".
You can mark me -5 TROLL now. Disagreeing with Slashdot Dogma: pro-DRM (-1) pro-IP (-1) pro-US (-1) pro-mainstream platform (-1) anti- "consumer" (-1) Since you're already on the cross, I hope that you don't mind me stepping on your soapbox.
However, I also suspect that it is unlikely that Apple could securely share (without people leaking) the specifications... Security through obscurity is not the best gameplan, and in fact it's not Apple's. Real and DVD Jon have both reverse engineered Fairplay - comprehending encryption does not magically allow it to be broken.
Yes, I know some of you anti-IP people couldn't give a damn about the rights of the industry to protect its own property from illegal distribution, but this voter couldn't disagree more strongly. I'd rather face the lock-in with Apple. You are presenting a false choice. The underlying issue is that by keeping Fairplay proprietary, Apple preserves a tremendous competitive advantage. Theirs is the only long standing, widely used music DRM system, and the majors will not license non-DRMed digital distribution. Much to the label's chagrin, this also enhances Apple's bargaining position by buttressing their position as market leader. In fact, it is labels who have the most to gain by breaking open Fairplay licensing - and of course, it is they who are advocating it.
IMHO, the talk about specs -> cracking is just the usual stuff you hear from people who either don't know jack or wish to set up strawmen.
Some of the gripes are interest to an XP user. I've had very little direct vista exposure; this is the first I've heard that the open dialog nested folder dropdown idiom has been replaced by a broken IE URL combobox.
Granted, it's a geeky sort of article. What I'm trying to say is, it sounds like it's not your cup of tea, which is OK. It's a free country, but you should remit your slashdot license at the earliest possible opportunity. They actually ran out of user ID's at 999,999 and it's important that unused / neglected / undeserved ones be returned to the source without delay.
Suppose that google is going to make the desktop OS and office suite obsolete. This very moment is then Microsoft's last chance - their stock market value and warchest will soon vaporize, along with their opportunity to compete with google.
And whatever they do, they will *never* be as good at what Google does. Remember, many folks say that Microsoft still isn't as good as IBM was.
Don't let me stop you. Call me a pessimist, but I'm glad to see more judicial scrutiny. You worry me because you seem to suggest that unless we can completely solve the entire problem all at once, nobody should do anything.
Are anyone aside from Republicans saying that? Their credibility just so happens to be pretty shot... Oh, and also, they have a lot to gain by making that fatuous argument.
Perhaps the Democrats aren't child molesting, war mongering election thieves? Perhaps they aren't election thieves at all? Of course, this sort of thing is hard for a Republican to understand. Nonetheless, it's a point that you may want to consider.
I hope you aren't implying that until every single person who may or may not have been involved in election fraud is arraigned, it would be improper to single anyone out for arraignment.
It wasn't the narrowest race, nor was it the one with the most irregularities Would you care to elaborate on that? It sounds as if egregious fraud may have occured - thus, the trial.
Electoral problems should be scrutinized and fixed based on their severity and merits, not how well they play into some "what if the other guy had won?" scenario. Pardon me, but I voted for Kerry because I wanted to see him win. If these people had a hand in throwing the election, I want them in jail.
They think that they have no bargaining power, which puts them in the mood to make sacrifices. Their low marketshare would seem to warrant such thinking. Mind you, the corporate gameplan stipulates innevitable success. More leverage and better contracts will of course accompany this success.
Be that as it may, the Zune is clearly shitfucked. The only real question remaining is, whom will Balmer Blame?
Feel free to think of it this way: would you want to be the guy who probably should have made concessions to the labels 7 months ago?
Slashdot Mirror
Indeed, when embarking on a journey of a thousand miles that begins with a single step...
throw your baggage to the ground and wallow in the mud, because that one step wouldn't have made much difference anyway.
Also, when deploying new software at a Fortune 500, if informed that some systems will be upgraded before others...
throw your cd case to the ground and wallow on the buffed tile floor, because if you can't solve a massive problem all at once in an instant, it's not worth solving at all ever.
It sounds like digitimes may be the site you are looking for...
Once upon a time, Microsoft went slap happy with the Back-Office moniker. They hurridly affixed it to many a disparate product for reasons unknown.
.net moniker. They hurridly affixed it over stale back-office stickers and even on products that had been lucky enough to avoid the officially orificially excrementitious sounding branding the last time around.
.net doesn't mean anything. Bill himself saw this to be true and hurridly, desperately affixed 'live' to many a disparate product. The rest he called 'vista'.
Days past, PR staff churned and version numbers changed in format, length and value.
Eventually, Microsoft realized that back-office sounds like back-orifice. So, they went slap super happy with the
Days past, PR staff churned and version numbers changed in format, length and value.
The most brilliant of the Microsoft Marketeers realized that
Days past, PR staff churned and version numbers changed in format, length and value...
Because you're a stupid driver?
False advertisement. Nvidia advertises that their stuff works on vista. It doesn't.
False advertisement is against the law. One is often liable for the economic harm inflicted by his illegal actions. IE, Nvidia may owe a lot of money.
"TOUGH [COOKIE]," indeed.
It's called income and they failed to disclose it.
Are you saying that blackboard is trying to black us out?
Perhaps if we limited voting privilege to the landed gentry...
Users with old accounts see flickr adverts but not yahoo mail adverts, and they are less likely to be sucked into using other yahoo services. Even though this move will drive away some users, bless their hearts, it may still be profitable: yahoo id users see more adverts than legacy users.
Assuming that legacy users don't otherwise use yahoo, that 1/3rd of the legacy users will never use flickr again and that yahoo id users see 2x the adverts, this will be a win. Of course, some stubborn people don't like being overwhelmed by in-your-face space-wasting flashy yahoo advertisements. For them, there is gmail and, well, not flickr.
1. Users don't want it.
2. Users don't want it.
3. Users don't want it.
4. Users don't want it.
5. Users don't want it.
6. Users don't want it.
7. Shills don't want it.
8. Apologists say that it's not that bad.
9. Yahoo tried this before but were repulsed by their own users.
10. This is change for the sake of cross marketing benefits, not for reduction of image tag spam.
...netcraft actually confirms it! Netcraft confirmed the death of something!!
Has the coin finally dropped? Is Apple next?
That is commendable - rather than offhandedly dismissing wikipedia, your prof researched it and his efforts payed off: he learned to employ it as an instructional tool to teach critical thinking skills. I often hear academia and employers balefully lamenting graduates' apparent lack of critical thinking aptitude, especially with regard to graduates' ability to discern the motivations of authors and the integrity of their arguments.
Perhaps students would be more comfortable and less distracted in their pursuit of their most wanting ability if they could focus on it in a familiar and relevant context. I will not say that the patience one develops when he is required to scrutize and compare esoteric tomes isn't useful - and it's certainly helpful for someone to plow through ancient manuscripts searching for quotes once or twice in his lifetime. However, students will obviously regard such one-off pursuits as entirely disconnected from their lives - as existing in a separate Byzantine universe of irrelevancy that would intruige and beguile if only it weren't intollerably boring and the exclusive preserve of tedious savants who publish erudite volumes that eventually age so very much that new generations of savants aren't embarrassed to name them as primary sources in their own hide-bound works. Those tedious professors live in a universe that students briefly pass through and immediately, happily and enthusiastically purge from their minds at the very earliest opportunity.
It really is tragic. If only those students would broaden their horizons, they would recognize that the critical thinking skills they acquired as they poored over many a dusty opus of forgotten lore are directly applicable to their daily, unending reading of wikipedia.
Putting aside trollish prejudice, I do honestly wonder whether CEOs tend to have more crossover tech knowledge than CIOs have business knowledge. Both ought to have an educated appreciation of the other's concerns if they hope to effectively run their company...
Taking that prejudice back up, perhaps the more practical question is: when the CEO was schmoozing future board members at Wharton, Harvard, Yale or Princeton, where was the CIO? I always hear that social networking is really, actually - forget-all-that-other-stuff - business leaders' #1 skill and priority...
Again, from wikipedia: An ad hominem argument... consists of replying to an argument by attacking or appealing to the person making the argument, rather than by addressing the substance of the argument. Being strictly topical and in critiquing the substance and form of your argument, but not its proponent, my argument is by definition is not ad hominem. Allow me to quote from a geniune ad hominem argument: "as to the "strawman", you obviously have no idea what the f*** that even means".
Disagreeing with Slashdot Dogma:
pro-DRM (-1)
pro-IP (-1)
pro-US (-1)
pro-mainstream platform (-1)
anti- "consumer" (-1) Since you're already on the cross, I hope that you don't mind me stepping on your soapbox. However, I also suspect that it is unlikely that Apple could securely share (without people leaking) the specifications... Security through obscurity is not the best gameplan, and in fact it's not Apple's. Real and DVD Jon have both reverse engineered Fairplay - comprehending encryption does not magically allow it to be broken. Yes, I know some of you anti-IP people couldn't give a damn about the rights of the industry to protect its own property from illegal distribution, but this voter couldn't disagree more strongly. I'd rather face the lock-in with Apple. You are presenting a false choice. The underlying issue is that by keeping Fairplay proprietary, Apple preserves a tremendous competitive advantage. Theirs is the only long standing, widely used music DRM system, and the majors will not license non-DRMed digital distribution. Much to the label's chagrin, this also enhances Apple's bargaining position by buttressing their position as market leader. In fact, it is labels who have the most to gain by breaking open Fairplay licensing - and of course, it is they who are advocating it.
IMHO, the talk about specs -> cracking is just the usual stuff you hear from people who either don't know jack or wish to set up strawmen.
Some of the gripes are interest to an XP user. I've had very little direct vista exposure; this is the first I've heard that the open dialog nested folder dropdown idiom has been replaced by a broken IE URL combobox.
Granted, it's a geeky sort of article. What I'm trying to say is, it sounds like it's not your cup of tea, which is OK. It's a free country, but you should remit your slashdot license at the earliest possible opportunity. They actually ran out of user ID's at 999,999 and it's important that unused / neglected / undeserved ones be returned to the source without delay.
May I add that wanting to see your enemy punished for doing wrong does not necessarily mean that you would also commit his crime?
Don't let me stop you. Call me a pessimist, but I'm glad to see more judicial scrutiny. You worry me because you seem to suggest that unless we can completely solve the entire problem all at once, nobody should do anything.
Are anyone aside from Republicans saying that? Their credibility just so happens to be pretty shot... Oh, and also, they have a lot to gain by making that fatuous argument.
Perhaps the Democrats aren't child molesting, war mongering election thieves? Perhaps they aren't election thieves at all? Of course, this sort of thing is hard for a Republican to understand. Nonetheless, it's a point that you may want to consider.
I hope you aren't implying that until every single person who may or may not have been involved in election fraud is arraigned, it would be improper to single anyone out for arraignment.
Because that would be extremely retarded.
They think that they have no bargaining power, which puts them in the mood to make sacrifices. Their low marketshare would seem to warrant such thinking. Mind you, the corporate gameplan stipulates innevitable success. More leverage and better contracts will of course accompany this success.
Be that as it may, the Zune is clearly shitfucked. The only real question remaining is, whom will Balmer Blame?
Feel free to think of it this way: would you want to be the guy who probably should have made concessions to the labels 7 months ago?