"There is this assumption that you can't control it (the Internet)," Yarro said. "It's a toaster, we made it, we can fix it.... We can solve the Internet pornography problem tomorrow if we decided to."
Stupid legislators. It's not a fricking toaster, that's rediculous.
The answer they would give you to that is that, ideally, you won't have access to the hardware. Think of next-generation TPM computers as a titanium black box with internal sensors that detect anything attempting to access the inside and destroying the contents upon detection. Not to mention that the TPM chip itself will be hidden inside the CPU, which will have its own access controls. Check out the TCPA FAQ for details (rather old, but still relevant to the basic points).
BTW, I don't think this sort of paranoid computing will actually take off. I have a little more faith in the free market than that.
The only way DRM could work is if the publisher controlled both the hardware and the software environment. Ever heard of Trusted Computing and the Fritz chip? The idea is that they goop up the board with epoxy and/or lock the keys into a tamper-resistant CPU. Any attempts to get them would destroy the hardware. Once they do this, it is within the realm of possibility that they'd have their dream DRM that could only be broken by the most well-funded labs, which, in the United States, would probably be very illegal.
Of course, here, we're getting into 1984 type stuff that people would never buy into. Right? Well... hopefully. Read the FAQ linked above if you haven't before; like everything else, they're selling this under the guise of "security", even though it has very little tangible benefit to the end user.
I've taken two Oracle classes (could have gotten certified, but I really didn't care that much). Basically, unless you're running into the tens of thousands of users, there's not much difference. Now, as a DBA, there are some things I would prefer to do in Oracle rather than SQL Server (though I'd much rather do them in an open source DB like MySQL or PostgreSQL), but I don't think it's worth the (massively) added cost unless you really are running it in an enterprise situation.
Oh man, how low can you go? Providing support? How DARE they!
Really though, I think people will see it as an endorsement (and more so, people might think that Oracle is losing faith in its flagship product). It's one thing to provide support for Linux, but MySQL is directly competing with Oracle (to a degree). I really don't know what message they're trying to send here, but if it's that people should buy Oracle, I really don't see how this will help.
Anyway, competition is good. If Oracle thinks it can provide better service than MySQL for, well, MySQL, let them! It'll only foster better service on both sides.
Yep, same thing with my RCA Lyra. My ex-girlfriend put it through a full cycle without realizing it was in my pocket; it worked fine immediately after (including the SD card).:^)
You might not, but I'd imagine several editors would. You released the images under the GFDL when you uploaded them to Wikipedia. That means they can effectively do whatever they want with them, including removing the advertisement in the caption. Not to be blunt, but if you don't like it, don't upload the images.
Amen. But Wikipedia is uncommonly vicious towards its enemies, to the point where the community no longer matters and the only thing that does is that their article (and in ED's case, all references to them via the spam blacklist) get deleted and never brought up again. It's like the Wikipedia administration thinks it can blackhole a site from the internet. Insanity.
IMHO this is part of what's wrong with Wikipedia. They claim to be open to all and to have a community, deciding many things by consensus.
Except when Jimbo, or another well-known admin overrules everyone else.
They've even sneakily formalized this policy in renaming Votes for deletion to Articles for deletion, suggesting that while a discussion can take place about an article's fate, it can generally be ignored if an admin (typically the one placing it up for deletion) disagrees.
There's some interesting information over at WikiTruth about this (like everything else, taken with a grain of salt; there's some obvious bias there).
Anyway, I personally believe this is a bad thing for the overall health of the internet. Wikipedia is a huge site. Making it irrelevant to search engines will probably affect Google quite a lot, and give a *huge* boost to whoever figures out how to get around the nofollow restriction.
No, sorry. Nobody can convince me of anything by saying "well, such and such said it, therefore it is truth." I have always doubted "the media is the message" and will continue to do so. The message is the message. Whether it be communicated over television, or internet, or newspaper, those with a message to put forth will find a way to do so. The internet simply makes it easier.
And please, spare us the straw men. Nobody said anything about whether the internet was good or bad except you. We're saying that people are good or bad, and that the tools they use cannot inherently be either, since they are inanimate objects and must be used by a human to have any effect. If the right rays of light form a television hit the right person's eyes, it has no bearing on the television; the television is simply the means by which the rays of light are transmitted.
Sweeping generalizations about our entire country? I bet if I said the same about the US I'd get smacked down by the mods. Why do you think we voted out the Liberals? Our democracy actually works, unlike some other countries I could mention.
I honestly could care less, her preference. And if he wants to limit himself to women that shave, that's completely up to him. Somehow I doubt it would go over well if he was disgusted when he gets inside a woman's pants for the first time;^)
Yeah, I was somewhat skeptical of that when I read it as well. Having never tried Vista, I couldn't say otherwise though, which is why I tried to prefix everything with "according to the article".
Initially I thought this was just a rant, since the implications of limited user accounts have far greater benefits than limitations and users are going to have to enter an admin password to install nearly any software, so I don't see why games should be an exception.
That said, he makes a good point about the Game Explorer widget. Disclaimer: I have not, and probably will not for some time if at all, installed Vista on any of my computers yet. According to this article, though, it would seem that Microsoft is actually blocking games from running via any other means than the Game Explorer. This somewhat reminds me of Apple with iTunes in that using something else to sync an iPod takes more effort than most people would want to put forth. It would also seem to mean that installers will have to create special cases for Vista, which seems pointless to me. Admittedly, Microsoft could argue that limiting execution rights to the Game Explorer interface was necessary to enforce parental controls, but there are many other, less intrusive ways they could have gone about this (off the top of my head: deny execution rights to normal users, detect an attempted execution, if equal to or under parental ratings, run under a special Gaming account automagically, otherwise, ask for an escalation).
The obvious point is that Microsoft would seem to have a conflict of interest here; making PC gaming attractive may draw attention away from the X-box 360, something Microsoft would want to avoid at all costs. Are they making it difficult to run games in order to make the 360 seem much simpler by comparison? Maybe. I suppose I'd have to have both Vista and a 360 to find out, which I don't plan on having together for some time if at all.
As someone who's been fingerprinted by US Customs (apparently I just tried to cross on a bad day for this woman...), it's done with a digital reader, so no ink is involved. I don't know if that changes based on where you enter though.
With HP, you really have to mentally separate the "during Carly" and the "post Carly" phases of the company. Three years ago, HP and Compaq were, quite frankly, shit with their consumer offerings. They seem to have improved of late though.
Slashdot Mirror
"There is this assumption that you can't control it (the Internet)," Yarro said. "It's a toaster, we made it, we can fix it. ... We can solve the Internet pornography problem tomorrow if we decided to."
Stupid legislators. It's not a fricking toaster, that's rediculous.
It's a series of tubes.
I thought we got that straight a few months ago!
Well...
(Score:2, Interesting)
by 7of7 (956694)
Yeesh, you could at least TRY to hide your membership in the collective.
Yeah, but this has the added benefit of placing your TV partially under the control of a third party. What politician would be against that?
Only they get banned shortly thereafter for "trolling".
The answer they would give you to that is that, ideally, you won't have access to the hardware. Think of next-generation TPM computers as a titanium black box with internal sensors that detect anything attempting to access the inside and destroying the contents upon detection. Not to mention that the TPM chip itself will be hidden inside the CPU, which will have its own access controls. Check out the TCPA FAQ for details (rather old, but still relevant to the basic points).
BTW, I don't think this sort of paranoid computing will actually take off. I have a little more faith in the free market than that.
Indeed. These guys should have listened to Cory Doctorow when he was talking at Microsoft. Unfortunately, it seems they didn't get it either.
The only way DRM could work is if the publisher controlled both the hardware and the software environment. Ever heard of Trusted Computing and the Fritz chip? The idea is that they goop up the board with epoxy and/or lock the keys into a tamper-resistant CPU. Any attempts to get them would destroy the hardware. Once they do this, it is within the realm of possibility that they'd have their dream DRM that could only be broken by the most well-funded labs, which, in the United States, would probably be very illegal.
Of course, here, we're getting into 1984 type stuff that people would never buy into. Right? Well... hopefully. Read the FAQ linked above if you haven't before; like everything else, they're selling this under the guise of "security", even though it has very little tangible benefit to the end user.
I've taken two Oracle classes (could have gotten certified, but I really didn't care that much). Basically, unless you're running into the tens of thousands of users, there's not much difference. Now, as a DBA, there are some things I would prefer to do in Oracle rather than SQL Server (though I'd much rather do them in an open source DB like MySQL or PostgreSQL), but I don't think it's worth the (massively) added cost unless you really are running it in an enterprise situation.
Oh man, how low can you go? Providing support? How DARE they!
Really though, I think people will see it as an endorsement (and more so, people might think that Oracle is losing faith in its flagship product). It's one thing to provide support for Linux, but MySQL is directly competing with Oracle (to a degree). I really don't know what message they're trying to send here, but if it's that people should buy Oracle, I really don't see how this will help.
Anyway, competition is good. If Oracle thinks it can provide better service than MySQL for, well, MySQL, let them! It'll only foster better service on both sides.
Yep, same thing with my RCA Lyra. My ex-girlfriend put it through a full cycle without realizing it was in my pocket; it worked fine immediately after (including the SD card). :^)
You might not, but I'd imagine several editors would. You released the images under the GFDL when you uploaded them to Wikipedia. That means they can effectively do whatever they want with them, including removing the advertisement in the caption. Not to be blunt, but if you don't like it, don't upload the images.
Amen. But Wikipedia is uncommonly vicious towards its enemies, to the point where the community no longer matters and the only thing that does is that their article (and in ED's case, all references to them via the spam blacklist) get deleted and never brought up again. It's like the Wikipedia administration thinks it can blackhole a site from the internet. Insanity.
IMHO this is part of what's wrong with Wikipedia. They claim to be open to all and to have a community, deciding many things by consensus.
Except when Jimbo, or another well-known admin overrules everyone else.
They've even sneakily formalized this policy in renaming Votes for deletion to Articles for deletion, suggesting that while a discussion can take place about an article's fate, it can generally be ignored if an admin (typically the one placing it up for deletion) disagrees.
There's some interesting information over at WikiTruth about this (like everything else, taken with a grain of salt; there's some obvious bias there).
Anyway, I personally believe this is a bad thing for the overall health of the internet. Wikipedia is a huge site. Making it irrelevant to search engines will probably affect Google quite a lot, and give a *huge* boost to whoever figures out how to get around the nofollow restriction.
No, sorry. Nobody can convince me of anything by saying "well, such and such said it, therefore it is truth." I have always doubted "the media is the message" and will continue to do so. The message is the message. Whether it be communicated over television, or internet, or newspaper, those with a message to put forth will find a way to do so. The internet simply makes it easier.
And please, spare us the straw men. Nobody said anything about whether the internet was good or bad except you. We're saying that people are good or bad, and that the tools they use cannot inherently be either, since they are inanimate objects and must be used by a human to have any effect. If the right rays of light form a television hit the right person's eyes, it has no bearing on the television; the television is simply the means by which the rays of light are transmitted.
I make it a point to copy those "you wouldn't steal a purse" ads at the start of DVDs along with the movie. Gotta spread the word, y'know?
Wow. You're an idiot.
Sweeping generalizations about our entire country? I bet if I said the same about the US I'd get smacked down by the mods. Why do you think we voted out the Liberals? Our democracy actually works, unlike some other countries I could mention.
But one of them will be if fair use rights are removed.
Heh. I'm quite fine without trying to seduce random good-looking chicks at a bar. That's just not what I'm looking for.
The optimal situation is for both parties to be concerned with each other.
1. Register on The Pirate Bay.
2. Be over 18.
3. Select "show porn" in preferences.
Um, that's what I heard, anyway.
I honestly could care less, her preference. And if he wants to limit himself to women that shave, that's completely up to him. Somehow I doubt it would go over well if he was disgusted when he gets inside a woman's pants for the first time ;^)
Yeah, I was somewhat skeptical of that when I read it as well. Having never tried Vista, I couldn't say otherwise though, which is why I tried to prefix everything with "according to the article".
Initially I thought this was just a rant, since the implications of limited user accounts have far greater benefits than limitations and users are going to have to enter an admin password to install nearly any software, so I don't see why games should be an exception.
That said, he makes a good point about the Game Explorer widget. Disclaimer: I have not, and probably will not for some time if at all, installed Vista on any of my computers yet. According to this article, though, it would seem that Microsoft is actually blocking games from running via any other means than the Game Explorer. This somewhat reminds me of Apple with iTunes in that using something else to sync an iPod takes more effort than most people would want to put forth. It would also seem to mean that installers will have to create special cases for Vista, which seems pointless to me. Admittedly, Microsoft could argue that limiting execution rights to the Game Explorer interface was necessary to enforce parental controls, but there are many other, less intrusive ways they could have gone about this (off the top of my head: deny execution rights to normal users, detect an attempted execution, if equal to or under parental ratings, run under a special Gaming account automagically, otherwise, ask for an escalation).
The obvious point is that Microsoft would seem to have a conflict of interest here; making PC gaming attractive may draw attention away from the X-box 360, something Microsoft would want to avoid at all costs. Are they making it difficult to run games in order to make the 360 seem much simpler by comparison? Maybe. I suppose I'd have to have both Vista and a 360 to find out, which I don't plan on having together for some time if at all.
As someone who's been fingerprinted by US Customs (apparently I just tried to cross on a bad day for this woman...), it's done with a digital reader, so no ink is involved. I don't know if that changes based on where you enter though.
With HP, you really have to mentally separate the "during Carly" and the "post Carly" phases of the company. Three years ago, HP and Compaq were, quite frankly, shit with their consumer offerings. They seem to have improved of late though.
Why was the NASA probe playing yodeling music?