"Well duh. The whole point is to protect the digital content in its pure pristine quality."
Not really. The value of digital media is that the quality doesn't degrade over multiple generations. To pirates/traders, the loss from a single generation of analog copying doesn't significantly matter. Breaking the original media encryption by analog means doesn't force the content to stay analog. They re-encode it to an unprotected digital format and then it can be freely passed around with no futher loss of quality. It's not like they're dealing with VHS tapes and every pirate has to make a copy with another level of generational loss for the next one in line.
"I don't think sony are trying to use blueray-drm to protect the content from analog piracy which happens all the time anyway.
Actually, they are. That's why high def DVD players (both HD and BR) and HDCP compatible devices are not allowed to have high quality (YPrPb or RGB) analog outputs. They're trying to force as much quality loss as possible for that first jump from analog to unprotected digital. Pirates will prefer to crack the media encryption to get the best quality, but if they can't do that, they always have something to fall back to.
how secure they make the media. Cracks will follow the path of least resistance. If every form of media moved to some form of uncrackable quantum encryption tomorrow, it wouldn't matter. Someone would crack HDCP, and the content would be available there.
If not HDCP directly, then the processor to LCD data path for some el-cheapo monitor which supports HDCP. There's always some point in the chain where protection is weak, or simply doesn't exist.
It is simply a futile endeavor as long as the consumer ultimately gets access to (i.e. can view/listen) to the content. Of course, they have no product if the consumer can't.
and the court must be stupid (or, more likely, in collusion) to accept this reasoning:
"Justice department lawyers have argued that, even if the pair of lawyers were monitored, judging the president's authority to do so requires looking at the specific reasons why the duo were surveilled. And those facts would be national secrets that would tip off terrorists, so no court can ever rule on the program."
Because it makes no difference to the case whatsoever, why they were monitored. Warrantless wiretapping is illegal and unconstitutional regardless of the reason for doing so.
Fundamentally, capacitors store electricity (electrical charge), batteries do not - they convert electrical energy into chemical energy in a reversible manner. The charge/discharge curves are very different, most batteries will provide a pretty steady voltage until the chemical energy is almost depleted - capacitors will exhibit a smooth drop in voltage as the electrical energy is removed. Batteries won't work in normal resonating circuits because they don't have exponential charge/discharge curves like capacitors. This is also the main reason that capacitors won't replace batteries for simple circuits - a battery can be equipped with a simple buck regulator and provide very acceptable service. Because of the exponential discharge curve of a capacitor, making effective use of its stored energy requires a much more complex (and costly) regulator.
Capacitors are not exclusively used for their ability to release energy quickly - high capacity ("gold" or "supercaps") ones are often used as backup power sources for low current applications (such as real time clock keepalive), due to the fact that they can be expected to have longer lifetimes than batteries.
the customer shouldn't have to worry about compatibility. When they buy a product called "Windows XP," it should provide compatibility with all programs written for "Windows XP." Microsoft claims that "Windows XP Professional x64 Edition gives you access to greater amounts of memory while continuing to support 32-bit applications." and "seamlessly run 32-bit...applications." (emphasis added)
So blame Microsoft, not Apple. Even Microsoft's own Zune didn't run on XP64 when it was released.
DEC and DG are no longer. Today's marketeers allow no middleground - it's either a microcomputer (implying small), or a supercomputer (implying powerful). The terms used to have some meaning - now it's just marketing fluff.
the SI prefix "giga" come from the same root as "gigantic." Just as someone would sound like a rube if they said "Look at that gig-antic tree," so to those who say "gig-a-byte" instead of the proper "jiga-byte."
Boeing and its engineers have been doing this for a while, and I trust they've considered exactly what effects wing bending has on performance, and it is not a problem. Any/.er able to come up with a legitimate concern would be able to document it with the necessary math and physics, and not merely throw an offhand remark against the wall to see if it sticks.
I suspect that the limit to lift in controlled flight would be due to aerodynamic stall, not wing bending.
The engineers at Boeing are smart enough to design the wing for optimal performance under normal conditions. That includes whatever wing bending occurs under nominal conditions.
If the aircraft is experiencing extreme conditions which are bending the wing excessively, then you _want_ to lose lift, rather than stress the wing and airframe more. Kind of like how sailors change to smaller sails during storms.
They just send classified information from an unclassified workstation and an unclassified email address, almost like any person would send email in any workplace.
It seems to me that just as serious as how the email is being routed, perhaps more so, is how classified material got on the unclassified workstation in the first place (you mentioned one possibility), and why is that not also being reported as a violation. (i.e. why focus on the email aspect, that's just a result - the root cause is classified info being placed where it shouldn't be)
In the email instance, anyone can at any time send classified information over an unclassified network.
How does the user control that? Are they all running sendmail (or some other MTA) locally on their machine, and given full control of email routing?
I'd think, like virtually every other email system in the world, that users would have their MUA configured to send outbound email via a single mail server, where all further routing is under administrative control. Do they allow connections to that server from outside?
I could understand the issue, if it was someone sending to an external, insecure email address. But the summary, article, and now you all say the problem is with which network the email was routed over. The other possibility is they were off-site, and didn't have a secure VPN connection running - buy why would a secure system not force SSL email connections? Or is sending even over VPN/SSL not considered secure?
It's just not clear how the user has the control implied here.
(or is it that they're allowed to have personal email accounts on their machines, and that's where the email was sent from?)
the proper behavior is to still code to standards, but avoid constructs which IE is known to gag on. If you have to check which browser is visiting, you're not writing good code. If you can't use a site with Lynx, it's poorly written.
Slashdot Mirror
that you're posting "AC." What are _you_ hiding?
just put them in an autoclave.
"Well duh. The whole point is to protect the digital content in its pure pristine quality."
Not really. The value of digital media is that the quality doesn't degrade over multiple generations. To pirates/traders, the loss from a single generation of analog copying doesn't significantly matter. Breaking the original media encryption by analog means doesn't force the content to stay analog. They re-encode it to an unprotected digital format and then it can be freely passed around with no futher loss of quality. It's not like they're dealing with VHS tapes and every pirate has to make a copy with another level of generational loss for the next one in line.
"I don't think sony are trying to use blueray-drm to protect the content from analog piracy which happens all the time anyway.
Actually, they are. That's why high def DVD players (both HD and BR) and HDCP compatible devices are not allowed to have high quality (YPrPb or RGB) analog outputs. They're trying to force as much quality loss as possible for that first jump from analog to unprotected digital. Pirates will prefer to crack the media encryption to get the best quality, but if they can't do that, they always have something to fall back to.
how secure they make the media. Cracks will follow the path of least resistance. If every form of media moved to some form of uncrackable quantum encryption tomorrow, it wouldn't matter. Someone would crack HDCP, and the content would be available there.
If not HDCP directly, then the processor to LCD data path for some el-cheapo monitor which supports HDCP. There's always some point in the chain where protection is weak, or simply doesn't exist.
It is simply a futile endeavor as long as the consumer ultimately gets access to (i.e. can view/listen) to the content. Of course, they have no product if the consumer can't.
Because it makes no difference to the case whatsoever, why they were monitored. Warrantless wiretapping is illegal and unconstitutional regardless of the reason for doing so.
since the EFF was ineffective, support the NRA.
comes out with an object-oriented RPG and 9 track tape drive for a micro.
(and no, newbie, "RPG" does _not_ stand for "role playing game.")
Fundamentally, capacitors store electricity (electrical charge), batteries do not - they convert electrical energy into chemical energy in a reversible manner. The charge/discharge curves are very different, most batteries will provide a pretty steady voltage until the chemical energy is almost depleted - capacitors will exhibit a smooth drop in voltage as the electrical energy is removed. Batteries won't work in normal resonating circuits because they don't have exponential charge/discharge curves like capacitors. This is also the main reason that capacitors won't replace batteries for simple circuits - a battery can be equipped with a simple buck regulator and provide very acceptable service. Because of the exponential discharge curve of a capacitor, making effective use of its stored energy requires a much more complex (and costly) regulator.
While one can encounter "leaky" capacitors, that is not a necessary characteristic, and some commonly available ones do very, very well
Capacitors are not exclusively used for their ability to release energy quickly - high capacity ("gold" or "supercaps") ones are often used as backup power sources for low current applications (such as real time clock keepalive), due to the fact that they can be expected to have longer lifetimes than batteries.
the customer shouldn't have to worry about compatibility. When they buy a product called "Windows XP," it should provide compatibility with all programs written for "Windows XP." Microsoft claims that "Windows XP Professional x64 Edition gives you access to greater amounts of memory while continuing to support 32-bit applications." and "seamlessly run 32-bit...applications." (emphasis added)
So blame Microsoft, not Apple. Even Microsoft's own Zune didn't run on XP64 when it was released.
DEC and DG are no longer. Today's marketeers allow no middleground - it's either a microcomputer (implying small), or a supercomputer (implying powerful). The terms used to have some meaning - now it's just marketing fluff.
We have microcomputers and supercomputers and nothing in between? Seems to be a bit of hyperbole involved here.
You can write all the books you want, saying "fjsf" is pronounced "dfda," but what the hell does that mean without an ACTUAL AUDIO REFERENCE?
You obviously missed my Erasmus reference, which tells me you really have no clue about what modern opinions of ancient pronunciation are based upon.
That's funny, claiming to know how ancient Greek and Latin were pronounced. Can you do a good impersonation of Erasmus, too?
Where exactly can I find the pronunciation guide in the Système international?
the SI prefix "giga" come from the same root as "gigantic." Just as someone would sound like a rube if they said "Look at that gig-antic tree," so to those who say "gig-a-byte" instead of the proper "jiga-byte."
before posting?
/.er able to come up with a legitimate concern would be able to document it with the necessary math and physics, and not merely throw an offhand remark against the wall to see if it sticks.
Boeing and its engineers have been doing this for a while, and I trust they've considered exactly what effects wing bending has on performance, and it is not a problem. Any
I suspect that the limit to lift in controlled flight would be due to aerodynamic stall, not wing bending.
The engineers at Boeing are smart enough to design the wing for optimal performance under normal conditions. That includes whatever wing bending occurs under nominal conditions.
If the aircraft is experiencing extreme conditions which are bending the wing excessively, then you _want_ to lose lift, rather than stress the wing and airframe more. Kind of like how sailors change to smaller sails during storms.
damn Proxomitron.
while we're busy trying to keep out the tourists and business people, we're also trying to pass laws which allow those who entered illegally to stay!
you linked to. I get a "Missing Web Page."
It seems to me that just as serious as how the email is being routed, perhaps more so, is how classified material got on the unclassified workstation in the first place (you mentioned one possibility), and why is that not also being reported as a violation. (i.e. why focus on the email aspect, that's just a result - the root cause is classified info being placed where it shouldn't be)
I'd think, like virtually every other email system in the world, that users would have their MUA configured to send outbound email via a single mail server, where all further routing is under administrative control. Do they allow connections to that server from outside?
I could understand the issue, if it was someone sending to an external, insecure email address. But the summary, article, and now you all say the problem is with which network the email was routed over. The other possibility is they were off-site, and didn't have a secure VPN connection running - buy why would a secure system not force SSL email connections? Or is sending even over VPN/SSL not considered secure?
It's just not clear how the user has the control implied here.
(or is it that they're allowed to have personal email accounts on their machines, and that's where the email was sent from?)
It begins...
on whether someone is observing (or not, which is not and in negative logic).
Did you break the president?
the proper behavior is to still code to standards, but avoid constructs which IE is known to gag on. If you have to check which browser is visiting, you're not writing good code. If you can't use a site with Lynx, it's poorly written.