Now, if you price your SDK and impose restrictions in such a way as to exclude or discourage casual, indie or hobbyist developers then don't be surprised when they turn to other platforms with lower barriers to entry...
I was just about to say. If an attacker has physical and/or root access, the game is over, you have lost.
If you use a better hashing algorithm like SHA-512, they'll probably at least not have a list of all of your users' passwords. They'll have everything else, but not the passwords.
So then you're stuck with the choice of having a private company direct what TLDs will be accepted, or an international body doing so. Either way, it's not the government takeover that the article and summary seem to be making people think it is.
The Obama administration is proposing (PDF) that domain approval procedures be changed to include a mandatory "review" by an ICANN advisory panel comprised of representatives of roughly 100 nations. The process is open-ended, saying that any government "may raise an objection to a proposed (suffix) for any reason." Unless at least one other nation disagrees, the proposed new domain name "shall" be rejected.
This would create an explicit governmental veto over new top-level domains. Under the procedures previously used in the creation of.biz,.name, and.info, among others, governments could offer advice, but the members of the ICANN board had the final decision.
If you didn't already know, ICANN is under contract to the United States government. So Obama's policy would effectively globalize the approval of new TLDs, in effect giving the US less power.
And if the story is to be believed, a TLD is only automatically rejected if one or more countries object and no countries disagree. If countries disagree or cannot form a consensus, the TLD isn't automatically rejected. Or specifically, from the PDF:
String Evaluation: The GAC advises the ICANN Board to instruct ICANN staff to amend the following procedures related to the Initial Evaluation called for in Module 2 to include review by governments, via the GAC. Any GAC member may raise an objection to a proposed string for any reason. If it is the consensus position of the GAC not to oppose objection raised by a GAC member or members, ICANN shall reject the application. (Note that the application fees should be refunded to the applicant).
Explanation: This proposal meets a number of compelling goals. First it will diminish the potential for blocking of top level domain strings considered objectionable by governments, which harms the architecture of the DNS and undermines the goal of universal resolvability. Second, affording governments the opportunity, through the GAC, to advise the ICANN Board that there is consensus GAC advice regarding particular proposed strings that should not be processed is supportive of ICANN’s commitment to ensure that its decision are in the global public interest.
(Emphasis added.)
So, in effect, it's creating an international body where members can object, but other members can block an objection. To my understanding, that's pretty much the opposite of veto power, and it's certainly not a US government takeover of DNS TLDs (in as much as they didn't own the process already).
Really, it all depends on how much faith you have that the other, saner countries will block objections instead of being pussies.
They're doing exactly what the Java Runtime Environment did: promoting a minor release number to a major release number. And we all know how much more stable or innovative that made Java...
Weird, Wikileaks still works here, from its original address. Maybe you meant "pressured Amazon into capitulating to his whims because he's a Senator, forcing them to simply change hosts."
The problem is that this isn't a legal maneuver to avoid the judge, this is to avoid any judgments against them being collectible (since the business will no longer exist, they'll claim it's bankrupt, and legally separate from the lawyers themselves).
They have Sony's signing key. That means they can remove the online DRM requirement and re-sign it, and their PS3 will run the DRM-stripped version just fine.
Ideally if they can solidly detect your hacking, they'd not just lock you out, they'd either sue you or (if they can find a criminal statute under which to charge you) summon the police.
Religious nutbags need to be suppressed for the good of human kind. And to be perfectly clear, if you believe in a god at all, you are, in my opinion, a religious nutbag.
You were fine until you proved yourself an extremist.
Their analysis demonstrates that a small group of users of these applications (around one hundred) is responsible for 66 percent of the content that is published and 75 percent of the downloads.
This makes no sense whatsoever. Anyone with even a shred of IT knowledge knows that there are a lot of downloaders, far more than the quoted 100, even if that number is limited to 75% of available content. Hell, a quick search of TPB will show single torrents with more peers than 100.
Now, if they meant uploads, then that's slightly more believable, if they're counting each major release group as one "person". But that's a pretty bad typo to make in a paper about IT, enough that it makes me doubt the credibility of anything else in the paper.
Slashdot Mirror
Link to the blog and/or archived copy?
Obligatory XKCD. It's OK that you don't get it, but those of us who like music games will keep having fun even if you don't think it's "cool".
...we mean in active use and classified.
And by "discourage" you mean "require between $2,000 and $10,000 for initial devkit costs and company approval" in the case of Nintendo.
I was just about to say. If an attacker has physical and/or root access, the game is over, you have lost.
If you use a better hashing algorithm like SHA-512, they'll probably at least not have a list of all of your users' passwords. They'll have everything else, but not the passwords.
Read the tweet, he though it was a set of Battleship coordinates. I bet it actually was that guy (or whoever tweets for him) that posted it.
So then you're stuck with the choice of having a private company direct what TLDs will be accepted, or an international body doing so. Either way, it's not the government takeover that the article and summary seem to be making people think it is.
Also lulz at the subversive organization thing.
The Obama administration is proposing (PDF) that domain approval procedures be changed to include a mandatory "review" by an ICANN advisory panel comprised of representatives of roughly 100 nations. The process is open-ended, saying that any government "may raise an objection to a proposed (suffix) for any reason." Unless at least one other nation disagrees, the proposed new domain name "shall" be rejected.
This would create an explicit governmental veto over new top-level domains. Under the procedures previously used in the creation of .biz, .name, and .info, among others, governments could offer advice, but the members of the ICANN board had the final decision.
If you didn't already know, ICANN is under contract to the United States government. So Obama's policy would effectively globalize the approval of new TLDs, in effect giving the US less power.
And if the story is to be believed, a TLD is only automatically rejected if one or more countries object and no countries disagree. If countries disagree or cannot form a consensus, the TLD isn't automatically rejected. Or specifically, from the PDF:
String Evaluation: The GAC advises the ICANN Board to instruct ICANN staff to amend the following procedures related to the Initial Evaluation called for in Module 2 to include review by governments, via the GAC. Any GAC member may raise an objection to a proposed string for any reason. If it is the consensus position of the GAC not to oppose objection raised by a GAC member or members, ICANN shall reject the application. (Note that the application fees should be refunded to the applicant).
Explanation: This proposal meets a number of compelling goals. First it will diminish the potential for blocking of top level domain strings considered objectionable by governments, which harms the architecture of the DNS and undermines the goal of universal resolvability. Second, affording governments the opportunity, through the GAC, to advise the ICANN Board that there is consensus GAC advice regarding particular proposed strings that should not be processed is supportive of ICANN’s commitment to ensure that its decision are in the global public interest.
(Emphasis added.)
So, in effect, it's creating an international body where members can object, but other members can block an objection. To my understanding, that's pretty much the opposite of veto power, and it's certainly not a US government takeover of DNS TLDs (in as much as they didn't own the process already).
Really, it all depends on how much faith you have that the other, saner countries will block objections instead of being pussies.
They're doing exactly what the Java Runtime Environment did: promoting a minor release number to a major release number. And we all know how much more stable or innovative that made Java...
Weird, Wikileaks still works here, from its original address. Maybe you meant "pressured Amazon into capitulating to his whims because he's a Senator, forcing them to simply change hosts."
But that just wouldn't sound scary enough.
The problem is that this isn't a legal maneuver to avoid the judge, this is to avoid any judgments against them being collectible (since the business will no longer exist, they'll claim it's bankrupt, and legally separate from the lawyers themselves).
They have Sony's signing key. That means they can remove the online DRM requirement and re-sign it, and their PS3 will run the DRM-stripped version just fine.
This will only affect legitimate customers.
Because the company is almost always on much stronger footing than the employee.
That's why there are labour laws. That's why not everyone agrees with the at-will doctrine, including most or all Canadian provinces.
Ideally if they can solidly detect your hacking, they'd not just lock you out, they'd either sue you or (if they can find a criminal statute under which to charge you) summon the police.
Car dealerships will take the $20,000 tax credit into consideration when doing financing, most likely.
Religious nutbags need to be suppressed for the good of human kind. And to be perfectly clear, if you believe in a god at all, you are, in my opinion, a religious nutbag.
You were fine until you proved yourself an extremist.
Frankly, the initial $599 price for the PS3 was enough for me to avoid them in the first place.
Same. These grey boxes (especially with the slightly darker grey text within) are really hard on the eyes.
And the idea that abbreviated comments should completely hide all of their children is poorly conceived at best.
I can fix the design issues myself in a local stylesheet and release that for anyone interested, but I hope they fix the hidden comments thing.
That extra strain on my enter-finger builds up, you know! I could get carpal tunnel 0.00004% faster!
Their analysis demonstrates that a small group of users of these applications (around one hundred) is responsible for 66 percent of the content that is published and 75 percent of the downloads.
This makes no sense whatsoever. Anyone with even a shred of IT knowledge knows that there are a lot of downloaders, far more than the quoted 100, even if that number is limited to 75% of available content. Hell, a quick search of TPB will show single torrents with more peers than 100.
Now, if they meant uploads, then that's slightly more believable, if they're counting each major release group as one "person". But that's a pretty bad typo to make in a paper about IT, enough that it makes me doubt the credibility of anything else in the paper.
I can't imagine a 3D printed metal screwdriver would be as strong as a cast one.
2. Legal Rights. The applied-gTLD somehow "infringes" on the rights of the protesting group.
See, that's it right there. They're claiming ownership of the word 'music'.
You'd be surprised.
I foresee an EMP device entering into the picture at some point.
The WWF (now WWE) has had to deal with this for ages, as their shows are often broadcast days after they're actually performed.
Their solution? Do jack shit.
The fans who don't want to be spoiled, don't look up the spoilers.
The fans who do, do.
Nobody really loses out unless someone on the cast has an unexplained need for secrecy. This isn't Survivor.