And why exactly would I want a product where I have to provide my own terminal to run their code and use my own capped data to support their service? Can't imagine any benefit to the actual consumer over just using my plastic card.
Excuse me for asking, but what part of a cellphone or smartphone does NOT require you to supply your own terminal to run someone else's code and pay for your own bandwidth?
Come to think of it, it seems pretty clear that you didn't MAIL IN your post above, so you must have used your own terminal running Slashdot's javascript on your own bandwidth just to read and post here.
So why get so up in arms about this?
I would love not having to carry a wallet full of credit cards to get stolen, or even peeked at, and the numbers sent around the world in a text message.. If they steal my phone, I can have it killed and wiped, and de-authorized before they can crack the login. I would love to not carry a ring full of keys and car fobs. Its all going into your phone in coming years, and not a moment too soon.
The problem here as I see it is that too many companies are fighting for this space, using illegal tactics.
For instance, even though my phone is capable of using Google Wallet, it won't work on the device because AT&T somehow gets a veto over using the app on my phone. Its all just data, encrypted and secured data, so why do carriers get to block this app? How is that not illegal restraint of trade?
I don't expect it to be any different with Clinkle. Too many players standing in the way.
If you fly commercial air flights, you already trust your life to most of the technologies involved. As the article mentions, "larger aircraft have autopilot systems that can control takeoff, ascent, cruising, descent, approach, and landing." An unmanned flight was the logical next step in the progression.
The reason we have pilots is that these systems fail or fuckup all the time, but because we have pilots, its not an issue. The pilot takes over and sets things right, and none of these incidents are even reported. There is not a bit of paperwork filed when a pilot has to assume control of a take off or an approach due to any circumstance what so ever.
Remember that even THIS flight had a pilot.
The systems you mention work fine in "the clean room" of a totally controlled environment, and they fail with the first flock of birds, or revised instructions from approach control.
Until there are three redundant systems programmed by different companies installed on each plane, with redundant comm links and redundant remote pilots its not good enough for passenger travel. Military drone losses are a secret. Nobody knows about them unless somebody manages to capture one.
And the Republicans, for once, are in complete agreement. It seems the only bipartisan issue that exists today is propping up the NSA.
The Democrats won't allow anything negative to blow back on Obama, (not that they needed another reason to justify snooping and oversight of the unwashed masses, since their normal world view is that you need government to take care of yourself.
But the Republican party is passing up this opportunity to pin this on the democratic administration because much of this started under their watch.
Its a giant Cover Our Asses clusterfuck with not a single one of them (well maybe a couple) looking out for our interests.
Remember this at election time. They were all briefed about this months ago and never said a word or uttered a single objection. Every one of them, no matter how dear to your political leanings, has to be thrown out.
And DON'T BE THAT GUY, the useful idiot that parrots the nonsense about needing this to prevent terrorism. Look at the Boston Marathon, and ask yourself how well this morass of spying did at protecting us from that, even after the RUSSIANS handed us those guys well in advance.
The spammer would probably get grilled if found out, so that IS a weak link.
Yeah, that will work. LOL.
Given how pernicious and intractable the problem of spam has proven for as long as its been around, you sooner or later might suspect that it is a product of the US Government itself.
You are taking many of my points to the extreme, in an attempt to extract hyperbole. While it is a valid strategy, in this case I don't see it working. I was not suggesting that one raises a child to be ignorant, but there is a difference between fostering ignorance and saying "go play on the internet" whenever the child asks
Pot. Kettle.
But besides that, I was replying to Dputiger, and it had nothing to do with anything posted by AC.
Many habits and behaviors are indeed genetically inherited. This is scientifically proven with selective breeding in dogs and foxes.
People aren't Foxes, (aside from the above mentioned Natalie Portman).
Most habits and behaviors in humans are learned.
I don't believe there is much if any evidence of non-physically induced behavior being inherited. Twin studies (twins raised separately) tend to show that behavior is not inherited unless it can not be traced to physical sources (parting the hair on a certain side due to the pattern of hair growth, etc).
Children who are orphaned, fostered, or adopted may have certain behavior or inheritable traits activated by certain environmental factors or adopted parents, but only within the limitations of their genes.
Would there have to be some kind of regulation or oversight? Will these clones be second-class citizens because of a mark in their personal identification cards?
There must be some books on this.
Oh, I'm sure there are all sorts of SiFi books on it, but that ship has sailed.
In the US, there is precious little about how you came to be that affects your rights as a person, other than if you happened to be born to a down-trodden class you get certain additional rights.
Now what happens to a Cloned American Indian child? Are they part of the tribe, as they are even if adopted by non-tribe members? Do they get BIA support and have a share of the Reservation?
Some ego maniac cloning themselves will make the news.
Wouldn't that alone have covered the Brad Pitt angle?
Thing is, the clones would still be individuals, with separate legal identities and rights. And like many children, would probably rebel against their "parents" due to all/some of the same reasons kids rebel, with a great deal of identity theft indignation thrown in as well.
People aren't cats. And human rights accrue at birth in most civilized countries. (Except where gender may render someone to the status of property.)
Back to your question: Brad Mark I had better look out that Brad Mark II doesn't simply claim everything Brad Mark I owns by virtue of being one and the same entity.
You could have saved us a lot of reading if you had started with that line.
You are clearly out of touch with what happens (legally) in Public schools, including tagging and computer access.
Raising a kid to be ignorant of the wealth of information on the internet is probably a from of child abuse. State curriculum mandates many things that the parents do not have control of. And the idea that your children are your property is quickly vanishing from western civilization (and not a moment too soon).
Even when doing this professionally it is difficult to fully understand what the risks are, who exactly the "bad guys" includes, the kind of stuff they want to take, and the reasons they want it
To that, you have to add, "Who gives a rip about little Johnny's 5th grade book report". No company, not even Google themself, is going to dig through Johnny's school papers and test reports, because privacy violations would be financially devastating, as would the legal ramifications if it were found out, and what there is to gain is minimal to non-existent. What any kid does on the detail assignment level in school is of exactly zero value when evaluating employment opportunities or digging up dirt on potential candidates for public office.
Now if Johnny develops a 85mph fastball and a devastating curveball that he can control while on the high school baseball team, and that information becomes public, there may be ramifications. Oh, wait, that info is already public.
What a kid does in their google managed school email is probably more if interest to the School Administration while performing their job than anyone else. But it hardly matters because unless you go back to written assignments, ANY school support platform would be subject to the same scrutiny. Even one controlled strictly by the individual school.
Without knowing the writer's location, how can they state for sure that the data is stored off-shore, and if the writer was in the US, wouldn't having it off shore be better?
That depends. Quite a few kids play driving and racing simulators of various kinds since little nowadays and have a decent understanding on what kind of decisions work and don't in a car.
Life is not a video game, and real cars don't behave the way video games do. So the the extent video games influence driving at all (and I'm not convinced they do), its probably a net negative (bad) effect. (There is a tendency to attribute every bad thing in the world to video games, and I'm not convinced its real).
The press is full of stories about spikes in reckless driving when ever a movie of the Grand Theft series is shown, but I suspect this also pretty much hype.
Even if your parents were Teetotalers, did you ever ask them if you could have a beer in the house? Unless its born of religious convictions, some (most?) parents would rather see how you handle alcohol at home rather than send you out into the world with no guidance.
I had wine on holidays by age 12, so did my kid. Watered down and measured of course, and only at home. I could be arrested for allowing that in most states.
In Italy there really is no legal definition of when you can have wine with dinner with parental consent, as many families let kids have (usually watered down) wine at least occasionally. The legal drinking age is 16. Italy ranks in the middle of the pack in alcohol consumption and low on the list of alcohol related deaths.
Its clearly a club hanging from Samsung belt. But I doubt they will want to use it to try to build much in the way of consumer devices because the rich application and interoperability that Android already has. I suspect it is a threat which will be used to leverage control of Android away from the Android Alliance so that Samsung can dominate it.
I think the time for that has come and gone. No sooner had Samsung engineered the near demise of HTC than Sony and ZTE and Huawei, and LG started surging.
Its linux and webkit in a shotgun wedding designed by Intel and Samsung because Android was getting so big those players were getting scared.
It may see the light of day in commercial deployment, but I suspect it is really just hanging around for Samsung to use as a threat if it doesn't get its way in dominating the Android Alliance.
DRM does require some obscurity. How would you implement an open source DRM client, for example, where the user is free to compile it themselves?
Maybe the same way you can implement SSH securely even when you have the source code? Or PGP, or SSL. Come on TV, you've been around long enough to know that security by obscurity is a joke. The best security is the kind I can hand you the source code and you STILL can't break it.
That only makes sense if buying the Xbox Only version was cheap and easy. For sake of argument, lets say it is.
It will take http://pinouts.ru/ maybe a week and a half to post the specs, and some enterprising Chinese company will make a converter. Or you could bread-board your own.
You could write a standard DRM, that was published publicly, and still have it secure. But there is no reason it should be written into the standard.
Given the use the rabble in the movie industry has put DRM to, there is no reason to create a standard DRM method, and doing so plays right into their hands. Because once you embrace DRM as part of the standard it turns the community against itself, simultaneously trying to perfect the standard that is being employed contrary to their interests.
What a total usurpation of community support. They want each of you who believe in open standards and open software, to run out and buy a baseball bat and tie it around your neck so they always have something handy to beat you with.
There's no reason to change anything to to subvert the notion of open standards.
Keeping closed-standards for DRM integration helps open standards? WTF? I think that's enough Slashdot for you for today.
I think he means that the current closed standards require closed viewers, or custom viewing software. Yet this hasn't stopped the movie industry from putting movies on the web. There is no reason why the web standards should bend to accommodate and prop up a failed business model. Let them continue to use there ever easier to crack closed viewing software, or proprietary plugins. Don't make it easier for them. Leave the DRM out of the open standard.
And oddly, the movie business is doing better since they started exploiting the net. I mean the Theater Business. Its still growing, in spite of the trash the shovel out these days.
If movies on line were priced lower than they are their receipts would be up even more. The average CURRENT movie prices in Google Play Movies runs around $5-7 bucks for HD quality for one play. To own it, costs usually around $12 to $18.
Both the per-view and the Buy to Own are enough to keep me from buying or renting most of the drivel they shovel out these days. I might buy a view at $2.00, I might buy to own at $6.00.
Slashdot Mirror
And why exactly would I want a product where I have to provide my own terminal to run their code and use my own capped data to support their service? Can't imagine any benefit to the actual consumer over just using my plastic card.
Excuse me for asking, but what part of a cellphone or smartphone does NOT require you to supply your own terminal to run someone else's code and pay for your own bandwidth?
Come to think of it, it seems pretty clear that you didn't MAIL IN your post above, so you must have used your own terminal running Slashdot's javascript on your own bandwidth just to read and post here.
So why get so up in arms about this?
I would love not having to carry a wallet full of credit cards to get stolen, or even peeked at, and the numbers sent around the world in a text message.. If they steal my phone, I can have it killed and wiped, and de-authorized before they can crack the login. I would love to not carry a ring full of keys and car fobs. Its all going into your phone in coming years, and not a moment too soon.
The problem here as I see it is that too many companies are fighting for this space, using illegal tactics.
For instance, even though my phone is capable of using Google Wallet, it won't work on the device because AT&T somehow gets a veto over using the app on my phone. Its all just data, encrypted and secured data, so why do carriers get to block this app? How is that not illegal restraint of trade?
I don't expect it to be any different with Clinkle. Too many players standing in the way.
If you fly commercial air flights, you already trust your life to most of the technologies involved. As the article mentions, "larger aircraft have autopilot systems that can control takeoff, ascent, cruising, descent, approach, and landing." An unmanned flight was the logical next step in the progression.
The reason we have pilots is that these systems fail or fuckup all the time, but because we have pilots, its not an issue. The pilot takes over and sets things right, and none of these incidents are even reported. There is not a bit of paperwork filed when a pilot has to assume control of a take off or an approach due to any circumstance what so ever.
Remember that even THIS flight had a pilot.
The systems you mention work fine in "the clean room" of a totally controlled environment, and they fail with the first flock of birds, or revised instructions from approach control.
Until there are three redundant systems programmed by different companies installed on each plane, with redundant comm links and redundant remote pilots its not good enough for passenger travel. Military drone losses are a secret. Nobody knows about them unless somebody manages to capture one.
Correct.
And the Republicans, for once, are in complete agreement. It seems the only bipartisan issue that exists today is propping up the NSA.
The Democrats won't allow anything negative to blow back on Obama, (not that they needed another reason to justify snooping and oversight of the unwashed masses, since their normal world view is that you need government to take care of yourself.
But the Republican party is passing up this opportunity to pin this on the democratic administration because much of this started under their watch.
Its a giant Cover Our Asses clusterfuck with not a single one of them (well maybe a couple) looking out for our interests.
Remember this at election time. They were all briefed about this months ago and never said a word or uttered a single objection.
Every one of them, no matter how dear to your political leanings, has to be thrown out.
And DON'T BE THAT GUY, the useful idiot that parrots the nonsense about needing this to prevent terrorism. Look at the Boston Marathon, and ask yourself how well this morass of spying did at protecting us from that, even after the RUSSIANS handed us those guys well in advance.
Don't be ridiculous. As a well documented historical relic, the paper is worth much more than you think.
The spammer would probably get grilled if found out, so that IS a weak link.
Yeah, that will work. LOL.
Given how pernicious and intractable the problem of spam has proven for as long as its been around, you sooner or later might suspect that it is a product of the US Government itself.
You are taking many of my points to the extreme, in an attempt to extract hyperbole. While it is a valid strategy, in this case I don't see it working. I was not suggesting that one raises a child to be ignorant, but there is a difference between fostering ignorance and saying "go play on the internet" whenever the child asks
Pot. Kettle.
But besides that, I was replying to Dputiger, and it had nothing to do with anything posted by AC.
It gets more creepy, when a company clones someone and then claims it as their property.
Or "The Island" (movie).
Please keep up with current events.
http://www.cnn.com/2013/06/13/politics/scotus-genes
Many habits and behaviors are indeed genetically inherited. This is scientifically proven with selective breeding in dogs and foxes.
People aren't Foxes, (aside from the above mentioned Natalie Portman).
Most habits and behaviors in humans are learned.
I don't believe there is much if any evidence of non-physically induced behavior being inherited.
Twin studies (twins raised separately) tend to show that behavior is not inherited unless it can not be traced to physical sources (parting the hair on a certain side due to the pattern of hair growth, etc).
Children who are orphaned, fostered, or adopted may have certain behavior or inheritable traits activated by certain environmental factors or adopted parents, but only within the limitations of their genes.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minnesota_Twin_Family_Study
Would there have to be some kind of regulation or oversight? Will these clones be second-class citizens because of a mark in their personal identification cards?
There must be some books on this.
Oh, I'm sure there are all sorts of SiFi books on it, but that ship has sailed.
In the US, there is precious little about how you came to be that affects your rights as a person, other than if you happened to be born to a down-trodden class you get certain additional rights.
Now what happens to a Cloned American Indian child? Are they part of the tribe, as they are even if adopted by non-tribe members? Do they get BIA support and have a share of the Reservation?
Some ego maniac cloning themselves will make the news.
Wouldn't that alone have covered the Brad Pitt angle?
Thing is, the clones would still be individuals, with separate legal identities and rights. And like many children, would probably rebel against their "parents" due to all/some of the same reasons kids rebel, with a great deal of identity theft indignation thrown in as well.
People aren't cats. And human rights accrue at birth in most civilized countries. (Except where gender may render someone to the status of property.)
Back to your question: Brad Mark I had better look out that Brad Mark II doesn't simply claim everything Brad Mark I owns by virtue of being one and the same entity.
She's a stand in for "Anybabe". Just go with it, don't try to analyze it.
While I am not a parent myself,
You could have saved us a lot of reading if you had started with that line.
You are clearly out of touch with what happens (legally) in Public schools, including tagging and computer access.
Raising a kid to be ignorant of the wealth of information on the internet is probably a from of child abuse.
State curriculum mandates many things that the parents do not have control of.
And the idea that your children are your property is quickly vanishing from western civilization (and not a moment too soon).
Even when doing this professionally it is difficult to fully understand what the risks are, who exactly the "bad guys" includes, the kind of stuff they want to take, and the reasons they want it
To that, you have to add, "Who gives a rip about little Johnny's 5th grade book report".
No company, not even Google themself, is going to dig through Johnny's school papers and test reports, because privacy violations would be financially devastating, as would the legal ramifications if it were found out, and what there is to gain is minimal to non-existent. What any kid does on the detail assignment level in school is of exactly zero value when evaluating employment opportunities or digging up dirt on potential candidates for public office.
Now if Johnny develops a 85mph fastball and a devastating curveball that he can control while on the high school baseball team, and that information becomes public, there may be ramifications. Oh, wait, that info is already public.
What a kid does in their google managed school email is probably more if interest to the School Administration while performing their job than anyone else. But it hardly matters because unless you go back to written assignments, ANY school support platform would be subject to the same scrutiny. Even one controlled strictly by the individual school.
Without knowing the writer's location, how can they state for sure that the data is stored off-shore, and if the writer was in the US, wouldn't having it off shore be better?
That depends. Quite a few kids play driving and racing simulators of various kinds since little nowadays and have a decent understanding on what kind of decisions work and don't in a car.
Life is not a video game, and real cars don't behave the way video games do.
So the the extent video games influence driving at all (and I'm not convinced they do), its probably a net negative (bad) effect.
(There is a tendency to attribute every bad thing in the world to video games, and I'm not convinced its real).
The press is full of stories about spikes in reckless driving when ever a movie of the Grand Theft series is shown, but
I suspect this also pretty much hype.
Even if your parents were Teetotalers, did you ever ask them if you could have a beer in the house?
Unless its born of religious convictions, some (most?) parents would rather see how you handle alcohol at home
rather than send you out into the world with no guidance.
I had wine on holidays by age 12, so did my kid. Watered down and measured of course, and only at home.
I could be arrested for allowing that in most states.
In Italy there really is no legal definition of when you can have wine with dinner with parental consent, as many
families let kids have (usually watered down) wine at least occasionally. The legal drinking age is 16.
Italy ranks in the middle of the pack in alcohol consumption and low on the list of alcohol related deaths.
Its clearly a club hanging from Samsung belt. But I doubt they will want to use it to try to build much in the way of consumer devices because the rich application and interoperability that Android already has. I suspect it is a threat which will be used to leverage control of Android away from the Android Alliance so that Samsung can dominate it.
I think the time for that has come and gone. No sooner had Samsung engineered the near demise of HTC than Sony and ZTE and Huawei, and LG started surging.
Its linux and webkit in a shotgun wedding designed by Intel and Samsung because Android was getting so big those players were getting scared.
It may see the light of day in commercial deployment, but I suspect it is really just hanging around for Samsung to use as a threat if it doesn't get its way in dominating the Android Alliance.
DRM does require some obscurity. How would you implement an open source DRM client, for example, where the user is free to compile it themselves?
Maybe the same way you can implement SSH securely even when you have the source code? Or PGP, or SSL.
Come on TV, you've been around long enough to know that security by obscurity is a joke.
The best security is the kind I can hand you the source code and you STILL can't break it.
Someone watches that dreg they fill up the DVD with? Who knew?!
That only makes sense if buying the Xbox Only version was cheap and easy. For sake of argument, lets say it is.
It will take http://pinouts.ru/ maybe a week and a half to post the specs, and some enterprising Chinese company will make a converter.
Or you could bread-board your own.
DRM does not require obscurity.
You could write a standard DRM, that was published publicly, and still have it secure. But there is no reason it should be written into the standard.
Given the use the rabble in the movie industry has put DRM to, there is no reason to create a standard DRM method, and doing so plays right into their hands.
Because once you embrace DRM as part of the standard it turns the community against itself, simultaneously trying
to perfect the standard that is being employed contrary to their interests.
What a total usurpation of community support. They want each of you who believe in open standards and open software, to run out and buy a baseball bat and tie it around your neck so they always have something handy to beat you with.
Keeping closed-standards for DRM integration helps open standards? WTF? I think that's enough Slashdot for you for today.
I think he means that the current closed standards require closed viewers, or custom viewing software.
Yet this hasn't stopped the movie industry from putting movies on the web.
There is no reason why the web standards should bend to accommodate and prop up a failed business model.
Let them continue to use there ever easier to crack closed viewing software, or proprietary plugins.
Don't make it easier for them. Leave the DRM out of the open standard.
And oddly, the movie business is doing better since they started exploiting the net. I mean the Theater Business. Its still growing, in spite of the trash the shovel out these days.
It has actually increased, last year up by 6%, the year before up by 12%.
If movies on line were priced lower than they are their receipts would be up even more. The average CURRENT movie prices in Google Play Movies runs around $5-7 bucks for HD quality for one play. To own it, costs usually around $12 to $18.
Both the per-view and the Buy to Own are enough to keep me from buying or renting most of the drivel they shovel out these days. I might buy a view at $2.00, I might buy to own at $6.00.
And if you Wall Off Parts of the Web, who suffers?
Certainly not the user, because they will beat any scheme you invent.
Those who wall themselves off from the web erect their own gallows. Let them.