It may seem silly but I can just imagine how tore up that shiney white finish will look after a month.
The DS Lite has only been available in the US for a month, so I haven't had it quite that long, but it's actually standing up quite well to abuse. The corner buttons get a bit dirty, but the shell itself is still pristine, despite the fact that I carry it around in the same pocket as my keys. My black iPod, on the other hand, looks rather beat up with all the fingerprints and scratches. I'm not sure if that has to do with the finish they're using on the DS Lite or what, but mine is definitely holding up to the wear and tear of daily life.
I watch a lot of PBS, tend to rent shows on DVD rather than watch them when broadcast on commercial television, or if I do watch them, I skip the ads in my DVR.
As far as I'm concerned, that's the key. Give us the choice: ads or cash. I understand money needs to come from somewhere, but I want some control about whether I pay for it via my time or my wallet. For television, for instance, I really like what ABC is doing. Want their shows in high quality? Buy the DVD. A bit cheaper and right now, but lower quality? Buy it on iTunes. Want it for free? Watch it on the website, along with some ads. Some of their implementations aren't great (especially their ad-supported web version), but I like that they're giving the consumer the choice about how they want to pay for and receive their content.
You don't have to destroy the tunnels - just make them unusable for a few weeks. The economic effects would be massive.
Knocking out a single tunnel in New York City would be annoying, but it wouldn't be devastating. Damaging the Holland Tunnel, for instance, would cause traffic in the Lincoln Tunnel and ridership on NJ Transit and PATH to increase, but wouldn't stop the city from operating. Damaging a crossing on the East River would be even less impactful; from 59th street south there are six vehicle crossings. If you knocked out both the Lincoln and Holland tunnels, you'd cause a lot of hassle, but the city would still move.
Also, most people underestimate the impact of public transit in New York City. More than half of households in New York City don't even own a car, much less drive to work. If you want to hurt the NY-NJ crossing, damaging one of the PATH tunnels or the NJ Transit tunnel would probably be much more effective; on the East River side, there are ten subway tunnels and an LIRR tunnel, so the impact of closing one would again be much lower. But, in order to do that in any kind of effective manner, you'd have to somehow get tons of explosives into an actively used railway tunnel without anyone noticing. That's not exactly feasible.
Overall, you'd have to have a huge amount of coordination and skill to effect any kind of real economic damage to New York City through attacking its transit system.
I wondered the same thing. Okay, so when you buy software, you're not really buying the software, you're buying a license (or so they tell us). Fine; but where the hell is the license? What confers it? The purchase receipt? Possession of the original authentic media? The front page of the manual? The click-through license?
The license doesn't need to be carried through a physical object any more than the copyright that you're desiring to license. That's why it's called "intellectual property", it only exists in the collective mind of society.
Now, if you want to prove to somebody that you actually have a license, some manner of physical object like a receipt would probably help. But that piece of paper isn't actually the license, it's just evidence that you have one.
even have access to much of that data. Just cause he is top dog does not in any way mean he should have access to the witness protection records.
Oh, he probably shouldn't, you're right. But are you going to be the one who tells the Director of the FBI, a high-ranking political appointee, that you're not going to give it to him?
The difference is whether you consider each application to be its own layer, and not homogenous with other applications, or whether you consider each window to be its own layer, possibly interlacing different applications.
My personal annoyance with the OS X windowing system (as an OS X user) is that Apple can't appear to decide which is which. In Windows, if you click on the window of an application that uses MDI, every window associated with it pops to the front. In OS X, only the window you clicked on does. However, if you Command-Tab over to an application, every window pops forward, and as the grandparent mentioned, closing one window pops the next one forward, possibly through other windows. I don't particularly care if they decide that you're looking at a stack of windows or a stack of applications, but one way or the other, I'd like it to be consistant.
the irrationally high premium many people but on avoiding change
In other areas, I might agree with you, but this is financial software we're talking about. Changing the way you do things generally increases the potential for something going wrong. If you change your project management software, maybe you miss a milestone or lose some e-mails or something, which is annoying but generally recoverable. Having basically anything go wrong in the financial arena is a big deal, though. You can't tolerate issues with account balances or paychecks or invoices the way you can with documents or source code or scheduling.
To scratch my technical itch outside of work, I work technical theater (among other things). You get to play with geeky toys, and possibly get paid for it, along with the social experience of working in the theater system. If you don't have any experience in it, your local community theater is probably looking for stagehands, from which you could work your way up to sound or lighting.
I think he's more talking along the lines of "look you &*$#@^$ing &*(@#&*er, change the $^&@#@ing piece of @&^*@!" And of course, the machine always plays dumb, with its "usage: look [-df] [-t char] string [file]", like it doesn't know what you're talking about.
Well, technically, they are. They do have the devices to test with, do they not? They're using them, at least in a lab environment, right?
If they are customers, then they would have had to provide the information for export purposes at the time they purchased the item, so the reasoning behind the request to provide it again is bogus.
As well, they're not necessarily customers of the company; if they purchased the cards secondhand, they could legally possess them without ever having purchased them from the manufacturer.
I've often suspected that the weak link in an arsenal of ICBMs is the launch vehicle. In all probibility, a great number of older missiles would mis-fire, because I can't imagine that a long-range rocket ages particularly gracefully.
It's easier to service an ICBM than a nuclear warhead, and the US keeps them updated and continues to test them (in fact, tonight at 1 AM Pacific they'll be launching a Minuteman III across the Pacific, if all goes as planned). The current Minuteman arsenal will be good for at least another decade or two.
The thing that worries me most about building a new nuclear device is that foreign governments will be very interested in its design. Nothing like spending billions of dollars on a design so that China (for instance) can manufacture a clone for a few hundred million a pop.
Nah, a new weapon design getting out wouldn't really be that worrisome because the countries that already have nuclear weapons can wipe us out as it stands now, and as far as powers without nuclear weaponry, the United States learned very early that information has a way of getting out, especially things like weapon designs, so strategies for preventing proliferation have always been based on keeping people from gaining access to weapons-grade fissile material (which is both expensive and takes specialized industrial equipment that's much harder to produce than the weapons themselves). If the new design were to get out, all it would really do is provide the same maintenance benefit to other current nuclear powers as we expect it to do for us.
In Southern California, we happily graduate anyone who can't read/write English from our high schools.
In California at least (I don't know how other states are set up), this has a lot to do with the fact that state funding levels are directly tied to student performance. On the surface, this makes some sense, in that you should reward schools that do well. However, two side effects are that schools that do poorly get less money, which means they have less to work with to improve their schools, and schools really don't want to have a kid who's doing badly stay around for another year bringing test scores down.
Of course, there are lots of other reasons for it (like parents who demand that their kid graduate regardless of their grades or knowledge), but a major one is that schools are punished for admitting that their kids are doing as poorly as they really are.
Selling music seems like it would be a giant flop. Nobody I know of listens to music on their (CD-playing) consoles right now, I can't imagine anyone would want to purchase music to play on their PS3. Especially since it wouldn't be transferrable to an iPod, and knowing Sony, it may not even work on music players from people like Creative.
So while the passwords tend to be on the simple side for the average user, the danger for brute forcing is nonexistent because of the low lockout.
Assuming, of course, that you've analyzed all of the methods that the password could be used to make sure that they're not vulnerable to offline cracking attempts. Most things (like passwords sent over an SSL connection) are such that offline cracking attempts turn into offline cracking attempts on the underlying encryption, but some things (like WPA passphrases or HTTP digest authentication) are such that the password can be brute forced offline just fine.
One thing that really makes it stand out in your scenario is the ability to use keyfiles. This allows you to select one or more files that will be used (hashed?) with your password to secure your data against those hardware keyloggers. (Although, I would question whether encryption is really required if you aren't that bothered about security.)
It all depends on the threat model. I could see desiring encryption without being bothered by keyloggers if you're worried about someone breaking into your car and stealing your laptop full of sensitive information. Most people won't break into your car to install a keylogger.
I don't trust China and I don't trust America, but last time I checked "offical" ment jackshit in the tech world.
The difference is between hardware and software. In software, that's largely true, but in hardware the reverse is often true. Hardware isn't patched or updated frequently (often never), so you need to make sure that your hardware works with the other guy's hardware at the time that they're both made at the factory. There's also a big lead time you need on selling hardware; if the "next big thing" occurs, it takes hardware companies a long time (relative to software) to get that into their pipeline and onto store shelves. If China loses out and decides to sell their own crypto method anyway, nobody will interoperate with it, so it won't do well.
In the case of AES, it's perfectly possible, if not very likely, that the NSA is aware of some weakness the rest of us doesn't know about. It's even possible they had a finger in subtly changing AES to deliberately have this weakness.
I actually think that's incredibly unlikely, because AES is approved for use in protecting classified information. The NSA is smart enough to know that if they were to put a backdoor in, someone would eventually discover it, quite possibly someone from an enemy intelligence agency, so were there a backdoor I doubt they'd approve the cipher for protecting classified information (all the way up to Top Secret, using 256 bit keys).
does anyone think those people care a lick about price per watt (as this is a green party thing)?
The average desktop consumer certainly doesn't. However, performance per watt is very important to two segments of the population:
1.) Laptop users. A high performance per watt, and more importantly a low wattage in general, means you can get more things done on a single charge. The average consumer doesn't care about money, but they do care about time.
2.) Corporations, especially those with large server farms. On one computer, maybe the difference is $2 each month. If you're Google and have tens or hundreds of thousands of computers, the difference turns into hundreds of thousands or millions of dollars a year.
Between the two, there's a lot of money in equipment purchases at stake.
So it applies specifically to the N64 and Game Boy Color... but it could lead to litigation?
Can someone explain to me how this isn't just Ars Technica stirring the pot?
The actual patent claims don't mention the systems by name, but the background info uses the systems as examples of systems the technology might be used in. The patent is for anything, not just those two systems.
Slashdot Mirror
It may seem silly but I can just imagine how tore up that shiney white finish will look after a month.
The DS Lite has only been available in the US for a month, so I haven't had it quite that long, but it's actually standing up quite well to abuse. The corner buttons get a bit dirty, but the shell itself is still pristine, despite the fact that I carry it around in the same pocket as my keys. My black iPod, on the other hand, looks rather beat up with all the fingerprints and scratches. I'm not sure if that has to do with the finish they're using on the DS Lite or what, but mine is definitely holding up to the wear and tear of daily life.
I watch a lot of PBS, tend to rent shows on DVD rather than watch them when broadcast on commercial television, or if I do watch them, I skip the ads in my DVR.
As far as I'm concerned, that's the key. Give us the choice: ads or cash. I understand money needs to come from somewhere, but I want some control about whether I pay for it via my time or my wallet. For television, for instance, I really like what ABC is doing. Want their shows in high quality? Buy the DVD. A bit cheaper and right now, but lower quality? Buy it on iTunes. Want it for free? Watch it on the website, along with some ads. Some of their implementations aren't great (especially their ad-supported web version), but I like that they're giving the consumer the choice about how they want to pay for and receive their content.
You don't have to destroy the tunnels - just make them unusable for a few weeks. The economic effects would be massive.
Knocking out a single tunnel in New York City would be annoying, but it wouldn't be devastating. Damaging the Holland Tunnel, for instance, would cause traffic in the Lincoln Tunnel and ridership on NJ Transit and PATH to increase, but wouldn't stop the city from operating. Damaging a crossing on the East River would be even less impactful; from 59th street south there are six vehicle crossings. If you knocked out both the Lincoln and Holland tunnels, you'd cause a lot of hassle, but the city would still move.
Also, most people underestimate the impact of public transit in New York City. More than half of households in New York City don't even own a car, much less drive to work. If you want to hurt the NY-NJ crossing, damaging one of the PATH tunnels or the NJ Transit tunnel would probably be much more effective; on the East River side, there are ten subway tunnels and an LIRR tunnel, so the impact of closing one would again be much lower. But, in order to do that in any kind of effective manner, you'd have to somehow get tons of explosives into an actively used railway tunnel without anyone noticing. That's not exactly feasible.
Overall, you'd have to have a huge amount of coordination and skill to effect any kind of real economic damage to New York City through attacking its transit system.
I wondered the same thing. Okay, so when you buy software, you're not really buying the software, you're buying a license (or so they tell us). Fine; but where the hell is the license? What confers it? The purchase receipt? Possession of the original authentic media? The front page of the manual? The click-through license?
The license doesn't need to be carried through a physical object any more than the copyright that you're desiring to license. That's why it's called "intellectual property", it only exists in the collective mind of society.
Now, if you want to prove to somebody that you actually have a license, some manner of physical object like a receipt would probably help. But that piece of paper isn't actually the license, it's just evidence that you have one.
even have access to much of that data. Just cause he is top dog does not in any way mean he should have access to the witness protection records.
Oh, he probably shouldn't, you're right. But are you going to be the one who tells the Director of the FBI, a high-ranking political appointee, that you're not going to give it to him?
does 2 wrong karmas make 1 right karma ?
No, you're thinking of 3 left karmas.
so Ubuntu is expected to KILL them?!!?
So you're saying the subject should have been "Ubuntu: OS X-killer?"
The difference is whether you consider each application to be its own layer, and not homogenous with other applications, or whether you consider each window to be its own layer, possibly interlacing different applications.
My personal annoyance with the OS X windowing system (as an OS X user) is that Apple can't appear to decide which is which. In Windows, if you click on the window of an application that uses MDI, every window associated with it pops to the front. In OS X, only the window you clicked on does. However, if you Command-Tab over to an application, every window pops forward, and as the grandparent mentioned, closing one window pops the next one forward, possibly through other windows. I don't particularly care if they decide that you're looking at a stack of windows or a stack of applications, but one way or the other, I'd like it to be consistant.
the irrationally high premium many people but on avoiding change
In other areas, I might agree with you, but this is financial software we're talking about. Changing the way you do things generally increases the potential for something going wrong. If you change your project management software, maybe you miss a milestone or lose some e-mails or something, which is annoying but generally recoverable. Having basically anything go wrong in the financial arena is a big deal, though. You can't tolerate issues with account balances or paychecks or invoices the way you can with documents or source code or scheduling.
To scratch my technical itch outside of work, I work technical theater (among other things). You get to play with geeky toys, and possibly get paid for it, along with the social experience of working in the theater system. If you don't have any experience in it, your local community theater is probably looking for stagehands, from which you could work your way up to sound or lighting.
Like what? "touch me"? "finger her"? "man kill"?
I think he's more talking along the lines of "look you &*$#@^$ing &*(@#&*er, change the $^&@#@ing piece of @&^*@!" And of course, the machine always plays dumb, with its "usage: look [-df] [-t char] string [file]", like it doesn't know what you're talking about.
Nothing wrong with that. Apple's in business to make money, not friends.
Personally, I'm in business to make money off my friends. $12.87 and a 10 yen piece and counting!
Hell, a mere followup to StarCraft would be nice. I mean, how much longer are people supposed to put up with 640x480 pixels???
Pfft, 640 pixels across should be enough for anybody.
Well, technically, they are. They do have the devices to test with, do they not? They're using them, at least in a lab environment, right?
If they are customers, then they would have had to provide the information for export purposes at the time they purchased the item, so the reasoning behind the request to provide it again is bogus.
As well, they're not necessarily customers of the company; if they purchased the cards secondhand, they could legally possess them without ever having purchased them from the manufacturer.
I've often suspected that the weak link in an arsenal of ICBMs is the launch vehicle. In all probibility, a great number of older missiles would mis-fire, because I can't imagine that a long-range rocket ages particularly gracefully.
It's easier to service an ICBM than a nuclear warhead, and the US keeps them updated and continues to test them (in fact, tonight at 1 AM Pacific they'll be launching a Minuteman III across the Pacific, if all goes as planned). The current Minuteman arsenal will be good for at least another decade or two.
The thing that worries me most about building a new nuclear device is that foreign governments will be very interested in its design. Nothing like spending billions of dollars on a design so that China (for instance) can manufacture a clone for a few hundred million a pop.
Nah, a new weapon design getting out wouldn't really be that worrisome because the countries that already have nuclear weapons can wipe us out as it stands now, and as far as powers without nuclear weaponry, the United States learned very early that information has a way of getting out, especially things like weapon designs, so strategies for preventing proliferation have always been based on keeping people from gaining access to weapons-grade fissile material (which is both expensive and takes specialized industrial equipment that's much harder to produce than the weapons themselves). If the new design were to get out, all it would really do is provide the same maintenance benefit to other current nuclear powers as we expect it to do for us.
In Southern California, we happily graduate anyone who can't read/write English from our high schools.
In California at least (I don't know how other states are set up), this has a lot to do with the fact that state funding levels are directly tied to student performance. On the surface, this makes some sense, in that you should reward schools that do well. However, two side effects are that schools that do poorly get less money, which means they have less to work with to improve their schools, and schools really don't want to have a kid who's doing badly stay around for another year bringing test scores down.
Of course, there are lots of other reasons for it (like parents who demand that their kid graduate regardless of their grades or knowledge), but a major one is that schools are punished for admitting that their kids are doing as poorly as they really are.
Meanwhile, he wants to sell his books and push his "Storytronics"... geez, the 1970s called and want their cool innovative name back.
Actually, even the '70s don't want that one. They were just calling up to wax nostalgic about Pong.
including music and standard definition video
Selling music seems like it would be a giant flop. Nobody I know of listens to music on their (CD-playing) consoles right now, I can't imagine anyone would want to purchase music to play on their PS3. Especially since it wouldn't be transferrable to an iPod, and knowing Sony, it may not even work on music players from people like Creative.
So while the passwords tend to be on the simple side for the average user, the danger for brute forcing is nonexistent because of the low lockout.
Assuming, of course, that you've analyzed all of the methods that the password could be used to make sure that they're not vulnerable to offline cracking attempts. Most things (like passwords sent over an SSL connection) are such that offline cracking attempts turn into offline cracking attempts on the underlying encryption, but some things (like WPA passphrases or HTTP digest authentication) are such that the password can be brute forced offline just fine.
One thing that really makes it stand out in your scenario is the ability to use keyfiles. This allows you to select one or more files that will be used (hashed?) with your password to secure your data against those hardware keyloggers. (Although, I would question whether encryption is really required if you aren't that bothered about security.)
It all depends on the threat model. I could see desiring encryption without being bothered by keyloggers if you're worried about someone breaking into your car and stealing your laptop full of sensitive information. Most people won't break into your car to install a keylogger.
I don't trust China and I don't trust America, but last time I checked "offical" ment jackshit in the tech world.
The difference is between hardware and software. In software, that's largely true, but in hardware the reverse is often true. Hardware isn't patched or updated frequently (often never), so you need to make sure that your hardware works with the other guy's hardware at the time that they're both made at the factory. There's also a big lead time you need on selling hardware; if the "next big thing" occurs, it takes hardware companies a long time (relative to software) to get that into their pipeline and onto store shelves. If China loses out and decides to sell their own crypto method anyway, nobody will interoperate with it, so it won't do well.
In the case of AES, it's perfectly possible, if not very likely, that the NSA is aware of some weakness the rest of us doesn't know about. It's even possible they had a finger in subtly changing AES to deliberately have this weakness.
I actually think that's incredibly unlikely, because AES is approved for use in protecting classified information. The NSA is smart enough to know that if they were to put a backdoor in, someone would eventually discover it, quite possibly someone from an enemy intelligence agency, so were there a backdoor I doubt they'd approve the cipher for protecting classified information (all the way up to Top Secret, using 256 bit keys).
does anyone think those people care a lick about price per watt (as this is a green party thing)?
The average desktop consumer certainly doesn't. However, performance per watt is very important to two segments of the population:
1.) Laptop users. A high performance per watt, and more importantly a low wattage in general, means you can get more things done on a single charge. The average consumer doesn't care about money, but they do care about time.
2.) Corporations, especially those with large server farms. On one computer, maybe the difference is $2 each month. If you're Google and have tens or hundreds of thousands of computers, the difference turns into hundreds of thousands or millions of dollars a year.
Between the two, there's a lot of money in equipment purchases at stake.
I wonder how many people it would take to DOS that procedure?
On the flip side, how much would they care? The TSA isn't the one with a plane to catch.
So it applies specifically to the N64 and Game Boy Color... but it could lead to litigation?
Can someone explain to me how this isn't just Ars Technica stirring the pot?
The actual patent claims don't mention the systems by name, but the background info uses the systems as examples of systems the technology might be used in. The patent is for anything, not just those two systems.