There aren't any privacy implications. If you there were any, then you would have named one or mentioned an example. The situation prior to typing "sudo apt-get install dovecot" is that he had the data (so it's already subpoena-able or whatever you're trying to imply) and after that he'll also have the data. Nothing changes. Are you complaining that he's keeping the data rather than deleting it? I don't get your point at all.
are you seriously suggesting that the OP
a) find or create an IMAP server,
Yes, because it's easy. This can be done in literally ten minutes. Maybe a little more if he doesn't already have good storage allocated for it (e.g. a Reiser formatted ~/Maildir, or whatever your own religion commands).
b) force feed that server all his archived emails (presuming that there is some way to bulk import email into the IMAP server)
Yes, because it's trivial. It's highly likely that whatever he is using to read each of his different mail archives, can also talk IMAP, because everything talks IMAP. You say "force feeding" as though literally selecting and dragging in a GUI, or picking "copy" or "import" off some menu, is hard. It's not.
As for step c (changing how he receives email), I don't think that's being suggested but it may be a good idea. He can decide later, whether or not he wants his archive server to become his main/active server. That decision can wait and is not part of the scenario being discussed; it's an opportunity for the future.
How is that any easier to manage than his current predicament?
Because then he'll have his archive stored in a system that is specialized for handling the problem, accessible and searchable by any client he wishes to use, possibly even the very same tool he uses for his day-to-day non-archive mail reading. Or he can pick some other IMAP client if it handles mass/archive use case better than the routine use case. Everything Just Works, all together. All of his complexity and exceptions disappear. And at virtually no cost; there's no downside to counter any of the advantages.
This is one of the easiest no-brainer Ask Slashdots, ever. There is one right objective best simple easy-and-fast-and-good(!) answer, and setting up an IMAP server is it. Probably because email storage is an old, very-solved problem.
Magicking 'money' out of thin air *always* leads to a crash. No exceptions. Just wait and see.
I think most bitcoin advocates would agree with you on that, and they see the last century's inflation as evidence that you are correct.
Bitcoin, "gold bugs", etc are a response to the very thing you're talking about: to come up with something less magical and less thin-airy than other currencies.
It's the old parable of not having to outrun the bear, just your fellow hiker. And the fellow hikers are looking awfully feeble. Whenever there's a discussion about dollars and euros, eventually someone ends up saying something like "Magicking 'money' out of thin air *always* leads to a crash."
Additionally, we would setup a queue in our HPC that dedicates 30% to BC mining when in use
You need to get it straight, in your head, about what you're trying to do.
When you're talking about a "nice -n 20 ionice -c 3" job (or its equiv in whatever OS you're using) the idea is that there are some resources being used over time, which happen even when the processor is idle and are independent of power. As an extreme example, if you have to have a thousand computers, then you need to have a building for them to exist in, and they're costing you money even when they're turned off. The other extreme is using the CPU to turn the local power utility electricity into money, which is probably a loser unless your hardware is very special, and it's likely that your hardware isn't special. In between the two extremes, are various gray areas where the tradeoff is different, and the question is whether or not your specific pieces add up to a positive or negative sum.
That is a wise question to ask, and I wish you the best of luck in getting the answer. It's very complicated and requires someone much much smarter than me.
But as soon as you start talking about letting this project take resources away from other work (dedicate 30% even when in use), you're headed into a whole other area. You're concentrating on one of the extremes that I mentioned above, the worst case scenario where you're just looking at CPUs converting energy into money. On one hand, that's going to be easier to answer. On the other hand, the answer is very likely No, unless you have exotic hardware.
If it doesn't look profitable, present it to the boss as "competing" with your existing business. If it does look profitable, then call it "diversifying.";-)
Not disputing your point at all, but: Revolution sucks. Continuum sucks.
And Lost was not scifi. The big thing about Lost was that it felt like it might be scifi but it ever got there. If Lost is scifi, then so is Hogan's Heroes, and the term has nearly no meaning.
As for the rest, I haven't seen them, I remain hopeful, and I thank you for the tip.
we'd like to be able to use these sorts of services without proprietary plugins like Silverlight dictating what operating systems we can use it on.)
Then this is going to not get you what you want. In spite of them calling this a "standard" it involves you running a proprietary plugin. The "standard" being discussed, is the plugin's API. That is all. You are still going to be running unmaintainable unauditable unsecurable undebuggable unfixable mystery code. Unless you run a processor or OS that it hasn't been ported to yet, in which case you won't have it. Just like Flash and Silverlight.
People who are describing this as somehow being better than the current Flash or Silverlight don't get it: nearly everything wrong with those plugins, is wrong with this one too. It's just as limiting, just as unported, just as proprietary, just as insecure. The only differences are:
1) the API will be more specific and the plugin will have less (e.g. it won't need an ActiveScript interpreter/compiler in it) so it'll be smaller and have a little less surface area. Probably. Actually, there's no telling. BD+ involves having to load and run Java bytecode from the ciphertext if I recall (go ahead and correct me, someone) so who the fuck knows what VMs these hairbrained DRM schemes will have in them. If someone invents a DRM scheme where the ciphertext is an APL program which runs an APL port of Dwarf Fortress and the rest of the ciphertext is a bunch of rocks which the dwarves build into a structure which then gets snapshotted and reverse-aalib-ed to build video frames, then that's what your computer will be doing.
(Sorry, I went into crazypants area there, but we are talking about DRM.)
2) different browsers will do it the same way. No more putting an embed tag instead of an object tag (or did I remember that backwards) to be compatible with two different ways of doing things. So it's a bit easier on the web guys.
Those are real advantages, but all the security and proprietary and most of the bugginess problems, will remain. It's not fundamentally better.
I'm a realist. DRM is idiotic and useless, but the people holding the cards are too dumb to realize that. If that means that I have to accept unobtrusive and transparent DRM to view content because of that, so be it.
In all seriousness, there's another way. Pirate. Nobody has to put up with DRM anymore, except the release groups, and they seem both content and competent with it.
Do that, and you don't have to run any funny code at all. You'll be above all this nonsense. You get the best, fastest, most reliable and most secure sanely-operating machines there are. Now who is the realist?
I am stunned when someone poses a statement along the lines of: "You don't have tyranny, why do you need guns?" The person asking this question never stops to think "maybe they don't have tyranny because they have guns".
Rephrase the argument as a discussion about repealing the Voting Rights Act, and suddenly everyone will understand your point. "Minorities are allowed to vote, so why do we need a law that keeps the polls open to them?" *facepalm*
You're right that it's symptomatic of what's wrong with American politics, but I think you stated the case backwards.
The "modern issue" at stake is that people are worried that 3D printers might start getting regulated, with people-going-apeshit-with-guns used as the justification. Wanna make dollhouses? Get a printer license, so that you can enter your license id into the printer, so that it can call the Manufacturer Restrictions Management server to get permission to operate, as well as upload your dollhouse plan. Or your sex toy or farm implement or vaguely-legal-or-illegal gun or car part.
The stuff about a "high-profile crime" can be seen as a cynical comment that while generic manufacturing tech isn't currently under attack, it eventually will be, as part of a stupid over-reaction to what some fuckwit decides to do with the power -- the power which tech improvements are handing to everyone. As we all get more capable, we all get more scary. And politicians know that scared people will demand government do authoritarian things. Make people-who-aren't-me less scary, by making people-who-aren't-me less capable.
Yes, let's just file this issue away until the problem is too pervasive to control. Nobody take responsibility. Brilliant.
People aren't "filing it away" ; they're making a statement. The statement is: don't do it. Don't continue the recent few decades' pattern of using prior restraint to regulate what people are able to do, since prior restraint has been shown to always end up limiting both good and bad activities.
With political speech itself, as a society we seem to mostly "get" that it's necessary to hold back on prior restraint and instead hold people accountable for bad things that they may do, and persuade people to not do bad things. With all other forms of liberty, we seem to be taking a diametrically opposite approach, of capability-prevention rather than responsibility. It's as though everyone in America is an armchair military intelligence officer, looking at everyone else's capabilities rather than their intents.
I'm saying that's bad, proven by how it has led to a lot of stupid stuff (e.g. DMCA, CALEA), all of which is daily fodder for Slashdot. That ain't "filing away"; that's flaming. Ok, so flaming isn't as good as voting, but maybe some day, more people will vote. Let's aim for 5% in 2014!
The ineptitude of American politics and their reactionist mentality have slowly turned us into a de facto laissez-faire society.
Where the fuck in America are you seeing that? How is it laissez-faire for government to say people are not allowed to write a computer program which plays a movie or makes a secure phone call? How is it laissez-faire for government's presence to be looming over 3D printing tech? I wish I could agree with you that we're turning into a laissez-faire society but every news story points to the opposite.
Even when we hear about massive industrial fraud (e.g. the bank thing) framed as failures of deregulation, we always find that government's involvement in restricting entry into the market, is the very thing which caused the criminals to be in such a privileged position to begin with, unaccountable and unnaturally-overpowered thanks to our rejection of laissez-faire.
Spore too? This firing is long overdue. I bought that game and because of it's screwy DRM..[consequences to YOU]
Emphasis mine. Back then, you personally voted for him to be kept, and you told the company to keep up the excellent work.
We all make mistakes; me too. I don't say the above an attack against you. But we have to take responsibility for DRM's prior successes, if we ever want it to stop. We are truly in control, and always have been. Assert it.
BTW, don't forget to also stop going to review sites, where the reviews don't talk about DRM.
If a game has DRM and a review doesn't tell you exactly what limitations the reviewer experienced (and it's ok if he says there weren't problems; that's something we need to know too, if it that's what happened) then that's a fake review, or a copied press release. Reviewers' job is to tell people about this nonsense before they spend their money.
And yet many of us find it ludicrous that someone could have done the same thing to us...
It's not that it's ludicrous or couldn't have happened; it's that we have no reason to think it might have happened. There's no evidence for which ID fits and provides an explanation for which a hundred other half-baked ideas don't fit equally well.
When an idea doesn't have enough going for it to even get off the ground, nobody cares whether it's ludicrous or possible. ID has not yet been evaluated in those terms. Why would it?
...
Furthermore, it's a bit ad homeneim, but ID is often suggested by extremely ignorant people (literally over a century out-of-date) who offer it as as an alternative to evolution, rather than say, as an alternative to panspermia. This tends to discredit it. At least as an actual Earth-life-origin idea, it could conceivable become a theory some day (probably not, but there's no reason to rule it out; there's no evidence which contradicts it yet). As a species origin idea, though, it really is ludicrous as we already have learned that it is wrong. Whether it could happen or not is immaterial, since it didn't happen; evolution explains why dogs and cats are so different that they can't interbreed, and ID doesn't explain that at all.
The mountains of evidence for evolution put it right up there past gravity itself. Seriously, at this point it looks like we'll disprove gravity before we disprove evolution.
If people want ID to be taken seriously some day (maybe Thetans really did fire a torpedo at the earth 4 billion years ago, a torpedo full of Thetan-designed articial bacterium-like machines which use Thetan-written DNA and Thetan-designed ribosomes, etc, machines that the Thetan supercomputer simulations predicted were likely to eventually evolve into multicellular life) then they need to stop trying to confuse the public about evolution.
Members of that same maliciously-misinformed public might end up including the one person who could have conceivably had been motivated enough to go looking for a scrap of 4 billion year old torpedo casing. But noooo... nobody ever checks out the idea, because every single time someone mentions ID, all they say are totally stupid things. ID discussions are more reliably stupid than emails which mention "Viagra" in the subject line. So ID disappears behind the spam filter and no one will ever go looking for the Thetan torpedo casing. And it's all because some malicious fuckwits hate the idea of children learning about evolution, so they attack it by attacking all of science, giving ID a reputation as anti-science.
Let's stop doing that. If you ever spot anyone talking about ID as a theory (or worse, as a theory which competes with evolution!), try to talk some sense into them. Saying totally stupid things will only delay ID ever being developed into a theory. Not that it's worth while to do that; it's probably not, but we just don't know for sure. Destruction and misinformation cause harm, get it?
Suppose over the next hundred years, humans were to start doing this, and some of the resulting speciments got into wild. Then we had a very serious catastrophe (nuclear war, asteroid strike, etc) resulting in 1) we stopped doing it 2) (nearly) all the cultural records were lost, so there are no documents explaining what FooLab did in 2041.
Fast forward six millennia, to the year 8013. Scientists would have rediscovered evolution, but unlike today's situation, some of the evidence wouldn't quite add up right. They would see, from looking at DNA evidence, that something very interesting happened in a few thousand years ago. Someone would get an idea, and they would be able to formulate tests to falsify or confirm a brand new theory, called Intelligent Design, and they'd confirm it. Actually, they would probably call it something less stupid, but it really would be an actual theory, in every sense of the word.
Then, miraculously, in 8016, someone finds a cache of ancient documents. It looks like some storage device the year 2016 survived, and they're able to pull some internet discussion threads off it. They see people talking about something called "Intelligent Design" and something else about the world being six thousand years old. Since it's an incomplete document cache, they have no idea where the 2013 "Intelligent Design" came from, that it was made up, rather than being derived from evidence or related to science somehow. The 8016ers have no idea where the 2013 idea of a 6000 year old world came from, they just know that people sometimes mentioned it, usually mockingly.
You're in 8016 and you learn this. 6000 years ago, people were talking about some things that you know to be true, in a limited form. (Most of life isn't only 6000 years old, but some of it is. Presumably the 2016 discussions, for which you have incomplete records, were about similarly limited samples.) What do you think?
You think "oh shit, people have gone through this before, and something horrible keeps happening every 6000 years," and you start building bomb shelters. You also start looking at the DNA evidence for an echo, for a 12000 year old genetic node, although you don't find it. But there are plenty of ways to come up with good conspiracy theories for why it's not there. Maybe the 2013 people realized that the 4000-BC-genetically-engineered creatures were responsible for the 4000 BC nuclear war, and hunted them (nearly) to extinction. You need to start exterminating the 21st century abominations now.. or wait, is that exactly what went wrong in prior cycles, and what causes the bigger catostrophe? OMG by head hurts. What are we going to do? WHAT ARE WE GOING TO DO!!?!?!!
The main thing you can do, is when people ask you to vote for the constitutional amendment which legalizes NSLs, say you're going to vote against it and why, and then when election day comes, follow through on the promise.
You say they skip a generation (rather than 4 or 5 generations) to convince us they're not idiots?
Nice job on the comic understatement. That's right up there with revising Earth's entry from "harmless" to "mostly harmless."
"My wife left me because she said I was cheating on her with a dozen women. I was outraged at the false accusation. I had only eight mistresses!"
"The slick car salesman tried to convince me to buy a $250k Ferrari. I was too shrewd for him, though, and avoided the extravagant waste by buying the $190k model instead,"
"It's unfair to characterize me as a crack smoker. All I do is snort a line now and then."
"The cops said I stole everything in the house. As if I really could have carried out that big heavy dishwasher."
Their they're, yule be ok. Hay, at least you didn't write "it's affects."
FWIW I think anyone who lives at L2 should be proud to be alive, much less immediately spot their typos. Just feeding yourself, trying to get space-crops to grow in the Earth's shadow, must be a lot of work. I wonder how you deal with that. Do you grow your food using some kind of chemical ener... HEY WAIT A MINUTE!
Dude, you just gave away that you're totally an expert at the very topic at hand. Quit pretending to be one of the people who asks questions like some kind of scientist, and start giving us the answers like the obvious space hydroponic chemo-agri technician that you obviously are.
That's really troubling too, because after I read this, I went to change my network's root password and I couldn't find where to do that!
After RTFA it's clear they mean root access to that router, which is the same thing that anyone would have inferred from the mere mention of "back door" anyway. So why add the confusing phrase about the network?
The world is already stupid enough. There's no need to go to extra trouble to make it stupider. That's wasted effort.
Let this serve as a reminder that overgolding can happen in any community. If you overgold, or someone you love overgolds, get help before it's too late.
Even if a treaty forbids Congress from correcting DMCA, it should be easy to do something about it. FCC could ban the manufacture, sale, and trafficking in devices which transmit on licensed spectrum, if those devices require DMCA violations in order to repurpose.
That wouldn't be as good as repealing DMCA, but it would make DMCA irrelevant to this narrow case. Can't unlock iPhones? Ok, unlocking iPhones will remain illegal. But it'll also be illegal to sell locked iPhones. If someone wants a locked iPhone, sell 'em a locked iPod Touch instead, implement the phone functionality using wifi.
Of course: fuck the treaty. Repeal DMCA instead. And fuck all these narrow DMCA-amending proposals which are limited to "wireless devices."
While I pretty much agree with the Just Say No approach to drugs, there is one interesting exception here.
The reason consoles have limited software selection, is due to technological measures which limit access to the device itself, and a law causes the technological measures to also be legal measures. The government is therefore already directly involved in this situation with some rather heavy-handed regulation (e.g. "Thou shalt not install mod chips"), and solutions should not be limited to those you might find in a totally different situation, such as for example, a free market.
Since government force is already being used in this area, it is ok to use additional government force for pro-consumer and quality purposes. Just make sure that this is limited to situations where regulation-triggering technological measures exist. And all such regulation should be automatically repealed, if DMCA is ever repealed.
The counter-argument to all this, though, is that no one is required to use a game console. Sure, once you have one, the situation is fucked up. Obviously no one should ever buy one, or receive one as a gift. Before you spend your money on any console (i.e. crippled computer) you know what you're getting into.
Even so, though, within consoles, the programmers are getting special favors from the government, so there's no reason the favors need be lopsided.
The case for buying AAA titles, which are the only ones that try to pull this kind of crap, is quite weak.
Not to mention, a game where you operate an AAA battery shooting at bombers all the time, gets kind of boring fast. The "wild weasel" missions are way more fun.
If you serve the ads yourself, then afaik no ad blockers block them.
Am I the only person who remembers the 1990s? Back before hardly anyone used "ad networks" plenty of us were blocking web ads. It was typically done using proxies rather than browser plugins, but either way, the user's capabilities are about the same.
And if I recall, image dimensions were often a big clue the software used. For example, if you have an img tag with width=728 height=90, that image is an ad, period. You don't care what host is in the src attribute; the dimensions are enough. And if example.com happens (for their own convenience) to use helpful keywords in their path names, (img src="http://example.com/ads/ad12345.jpg") then all the better.
Maybe today's ad blockers are deliberately dumber about such things, perhaps even for the purpose of encouraging sites to run house ads, in order to foster a more responsible web. And if that's the case, cool. But let's not kid ourselves by saying that house ads are unblockable. At most, house ads come with one fewer clues. among several, that software can use to determine they're ads.
This is the part of TFA, in its entirety about genetic engineering.
Gore also railed against genetic engineering, including Spider Goats, which are goats with spliced spider DNA that allows them to secrete spider silk along with their milk. The goats breed, extending that trait to future generations. Gore sees such things as a case of science run amok, alternately creepy and scary.
No actual quotation, no stating of his case for what his problem with genetic engineering really is, no explanation of what's "creepy and scary" about the specific goat silk example, etc. SImply nothing other than saying he doesn't like it.
Might as well get his opinion of some fashion model's dress design, for all the argument and analysis happening here.
Why is it that so few politicians are willing to say "All violations of civil liberties are wrong, regardless of who's party is currently in control of the presidency?"
Because nearly all of us vote against the ones who say that. Remember the presidential race last year? Gary Johnson lost. And second place was Mitt Romney, because Ron Paul lost.
These losses were by wide margins too. It's not like Gary Johnson got 48% of the vote. We The People are very united and consistent on this: fuck liberty. That position is as safe as saying you like baseball and apple pie.
Remember that, the next time some cynic says their vote doesn't count. This issue serves as evidence that our votes count very much.
I hate disagreeing with someone who appears to agree with my overall conclusion, but you're making their problem out to be harder than it really is.
To really prove that somebody uploaded, you'd need to...
Hold it right there. This is Six Strikes we're talking about, not a criminal charge, or even a civil lawsuit. What's all this about needing to prove something, or storing evidence long term? I don't see any reason they would need to bother with any of that.
You're thinking in terms of legal processes, established by centuries of tradition and common law and legislation. We're talking about "strikes," a new parallel system specifically invented to do away with all that inconvenient stuff. Take everything you know about how a copyright lawsuit should work, and throw it away, because none of that applies here.
Personally I'm more concerned about false identifications, but you bought up fair use, which I think is an interesting side problem.
Limited excerpts being fair use? "Fair use" is a defense used in courts when one is charged with copyright infringement. We don't know if they have defined, in this extra-legal system, fair use as being a defense against "strikes." (Wanna take a guess?) But for the sake of the argument, let's suppose they have.
Let's say they deliver a strike against you, and you pay $35 to dispute it. Since you're invoking fair use, you're admitting to the copying (not disputing that your computer uploaded, was "making available" on the tracker, or whatever), rather you're saying that it was lawfully permitted copying, and wouldn't count as copyright infringement had you been charged with that.
One possible strategy they could have, instead of presenting evidence to overcome your fair use defense, would be to automatically fold and say "you're right." You win your pyrhhic victory and get your $35 back. There goes the storage requirement that you're talking about. Game over, and all you had to do was to be among the 1% of people who bother defending themselves and go through the hassle.
Another thing they could do, since you admitted to copying and invoked the fair use defense, is say "Oh, we didn't think of that. Yes, maybe you did lawfully share it. We appreciate critics showing how beautiful a few seconds of our movie is, or showing how the senator's quotation we recorded last year, contrasts with what we recorded him saying this year. We love fair use, since it only enhances the market value of our product. Thank you. But.. oh, while you're probably telling the truth, I'd hate to make a rash assumption. My oh my, you wouldn't believe how much your computer's participation in the swarm looked so much like all the others. Let's see your evidence, that mere excerpts are what you were sharing." Whoops. If you're going to engage in fair use sharing, then storage is your problem, not theirs. Don't have the evidence? Ok. I wonder which way the strike adjudicator will rule. Who will the industry-hired adjudicator believe, in light of you admitting to the copying but neither side having evidence for how much was copied. Maybe you'll get your $35 back. Maybe not.
Either way, though, I don't see a large storage requirement for them.
Slashdot Mirror
There aren't any privacy implications. If you there were any, then you would have named one or mentioned an example. The situation prior to typing "sudo apt-get install dovecot" is that he had the data (so it's already subpoena-able or whatever you're trying to imply) and after that he'll also have the data. Nothing changes. Are you complaining that he's keeping the data rather than deleting it? I don't get your point at all.
Yes, because it's easy. This can be done in literally ten minutes. Maybe a little more if he doesn't already have good storage allocated for it (e.g. a Reiser formatted ~/Maildir, or whatever your own religion commands).
Yes, because it's trivial. It's highly likely that whatever he is using to read each of his different mail archives, can also talk IMAP, because everything talks IMAP. You say "force feeding" as though literally selecting and dragging in a GUI, or picking "copy" or "import" off some menu, is hard. It's not.
As for step c (changing how he receives email), I don't think that's being suggested but it may be a good idea. He can decide later, whether or not he wants his archive server to become his main/active server. That decision can wait and is not part of the scenario being discussed; it's an opportunity for the future.
Because then he'll have his archive stored in a system that is specialized for handling the problem, accessible and searchable by any client he wishes to use, possibly even the very same tool he uses for his day-to-day non-archive mail reading. Or he can pick some other IMAP client if it handles mass/archive use case better than the routine use case. Everything Just Works, all together. All of his complexity and exceptions disappear. And at virtually no cost; there's no downside to counter any of the advantages.
This is one of the easiest no-brainer Ask Slashdots, ever. There is one right objective best simple easy-and-fast-and-good(!) answer, and setting up an IMAP server is it. Probably because email storage is an old, very-solved problem.
I think most bitcoin advocates would agree with you on that, and they see the last century's inflation as evidence that you are correct.
Bitcoin, "gold bugs", etc are a response to the very thing you're talking about: to come up with something less magical and less thin-airy than other currencies.
It's the old parable of not having to outrun the bear, just your fellow hiker. And the fellow hikers are looking awfully feeble. Whenever there's a discussion about dollars and euros, eventually someone ends up saying something like "Magicking 'money' out of thin air *always* leads to a crash."
You need to get it straight, in your head, about what you're trying to do.
When you're talking about a "nice -n 20 ionice -c 3" job (or its equiv in whatever OS you're using) the idea is that there are some resources being used over time, which happen even when the processor is idle and are independent of power. As an extreme example, if you have to have a thousand computers, then you need to have a building for them to exist in, and they're costing you money even when they're turned off. The other extreme is using the CPU to turn the local power utility electricity into money, which is probably a loser unless your hardware is very special, and it's likely that your hardware isn't special. In between the two extremes, are various gray areas where the tradeoff is different, and the question is whether or not your specific pieces add up to a positive or negative sum.
That is a wise question to ask, and I wish you the best of luck in getting the answer. It's very complicated and requires someone much much smarter than me.
But as soon as you start talking about letting this project take resources away from other work (dedicate 30% even when in use), you're headed into a whole other area. You're concentrating on one of the extremes that I mentioned above, the worst case scenario where you're just looking at CPUs converting energy into money. On one hand, that's going to be easier to answer. On the other hand, the answer is very likely No, unless you have exotic hardware.
If it doesn't look profitable, present it to the boss as "competing" with your existing business. If it does look profitable, then call it "diversifying." ;-)
Not disputing your point at all, but: Revolution sucks. Continuum sucks.
And Lost was not scifi. The big thing about Lost was that it felt like it might be scifi but it ever got there. If Lost is scifi, then so is Hogan's Heroes, and the term has nearly no meaning.
As for the rest, I haven't seen them, I remain hopeful, and I thank you for the tip.
Then this is going to not get you what you want. In spite of them calling this a "standard" it involves you running a proprietary plugin. The "standard" being discussed, is the plugin's API. That is all. You are still going to be running unmaintainable unauditable unsecurable undebuggable unfixable mystery code. Unless you run a processor or OS that it hasn't been ported to yet, in which case you won't have it. Just like Flash and Silverlight.
People who are describing this as somehow being better than the current Flash or Silverlight don't get it: nearly everything wrong with those plugins, is wrong with this one too. It's just as limiting, just as unported, just as proprietary, just as insecure. The only differences are:
1) the API will be more specific and the plugin will have less (e.g. it won't need an ActiveScript interpreter/compiler in it) so it'll be smaller and have a little less surface area. Probably. Actually, there's no telling. BD+ involves having to load and run Java bytecode from the ciphertext if I recall (go ahead and correct me, someone) so who the fuck knows what VMs these hairbrained DRM schemes will have in them. If someone invents a DRM scheme where the ciphertext is an APL program which runs an APL port of Dwarf Fortress and the rest of the ciphertext is a bunch of rocks which the dwarves build into a structure which then gets snapshotted and reverse-aalib-ed to build video frames, then that's what your computer will be doing.
(Sorry, I went into crazypants area there, but we are talking about DRM.)
2) different browsers will do it the same way. No more putting an embed tag instead of an object tag (or did I remember that backwards) to be compatible with two different ways of doing things. So it's a bit easier on the web guys.
Those are real advantages, but all the security and proprietary and most of the bugginess problems, will remain. It's not fundamentally better.
In all seriousness, there's another way. Pirate. Nobody has to put up with DRM anymore, except the release groups, and they seem both content and competent with it.
Do that, and you don't have to run any funny code at all. You'll be above all this nonsense. You get the best, fastest, most reliable and most secure sanely-operating machines there are. Now who is the realist?
Rephrase the argument as a discussion about repealing the Voting Rights Act, and suddenly everyone will understand your point. "Minorities are allowed to vote, so why do we need a law that keeps the polls open to them?" *facepalm*
Deer? I hunt a more dangerous game... oh wait, that's the whole point of the law. Never mind.
You're right that it's symptomatic of what's wrong with American politics, but I think you stated the case backwards.
The "modern issue" at stake is that people are worried that 3D printers might start getting regulated, with people-going-apeshit-with-guns used as the justification. Wanna make dollhouses? Get a printer license, so that you can enter your license id into the printer, so that it can call the Manufacturer Restrictions Management server to get permission to operate, as well as upload your dollhouse plan. Or your sex toy or farm implement or vaguely-legal-or-illegal gun or car part.
The stuff about a "high-profile crime" can be seen as a cynical comment that while generic manufacturing tech isn't currently under attack, it eventually will be, as part of a stupid over-reaction to what some fuckwit decides to do with the power -- the power which tech improvements are handing to everyone. As we all get more capable, we all get more scary. And politicians know that scared people will demand government do authoritarian things. Make people-who-aren't-me less scary, by making people-who-aren't-me less capable.
People aren't "filing it away" ; they're making a statement. The statement is: don't do it. Don't continue the recent few decades' pattern of using prior restraint to regulate what people are able to do, since prior restraint has been shown to always end up limiting both good and bad activities.
With political speech itself, as a society we seem to mostly "get" that it's necessary to hold back on prior restraint and instead hold people accountable for bad things that they may do, and persuade people to not do bad things. With all other forms of liberty, we seem to be taking a diametrically opposite approach, of capability-prevention rather than responsibility. It's as though everyone in America is an armchair military intelligence officer, looking at everyone else's capabilities rather than their intents.
I'm saying that's bad, proven by how it has led to a lot of stupid stuff (e.g. DMCA, CALEA), all of which is daily fodder for Slashdot. That ain't "filing away"; that's flaming. Ok, so flaming isn't as good as voting, but maybe some day, more people will vote. Let's aim for 5% in 2014!
Where the fuck in America are you seeing that? How is it laissez-faire for government to say people are not allowed to write a computer program which plays a movie or makes a secure phone call? How is it laissez-faire for government's presence to be looming over 3D printing tech? I wish I could agree with you that we're turning into a laissez-faire society but every news story points to the opposite.
Even when we hear about massive industrial fraud (e.g. the bank thing) framed as failures of deregulation, we always find that government's involvement in restricting entry into the market, is the very thing which caused the criminals to be in such a privileged position to begin with, unaccountable and unnaturally-overpowered thanks to our rejection of laissez-faire.
Emphasis mine. Back then, you personally voted for him to be kept, and you told the company to keep up the excellent work.
We all make mistakes; me too. I don't say the above an attack against you. But we have to take responsibility for DRM's prior successes, if we ever want it to stop. We are truly in control, and always have been. Assert it.
BTW, don't forget to also stop going to review sites, where the reviews don't talk about DRM.
If a game has DRM and a review doesn't tell you exactly what limitations the reviewer experienced (and it's ok if he says there weren't problems; that's something we need to know too, if it that's what happened) then that's a fake review, or a copied press release. Reviewers' job is to tell people about this nonsense before they spend their money.
It's not that it's ludicrous or couldn't have happened; it's that we have no reason to think it might have happened. There's no evidence for which ID fits and provides an explanation for which a hundred other half-baked ideas don't fit equally well.
When an idea doesn't have enough going for it to even get off the ground, nobody cares whether it's ludicrous or possible. ID has not yet been evaluated in those terms. Why would it?
...
Furthermore, it's a bit ad homeneim, but ID is often suggested by extremely ignorant people (literally over a century out-of-date) who offer it as as an alternative to evolution, rather than say, as an alternative to panspermia. This tends to discredit it. At least as an actual Earth-life-origin idea, it could conceivable become a theory some day (probably not, but there's no reason to rule it out; there's no evidence which contradicts it yet). As a species origin idea, though, it really is ludicrous as we already have learned that it is wrong. Whether it could happen or not is immaterial, since it didn't happen; evolution explains why dogs and cats are so different that they can't interbreed, and ID doesn't explain that at all.
The mountains of evidence for evolution put it right up there past gravity itself. Seriously, at this point it looks like we'll disprove gravity before we disprove evolution.
If people want ID to be taken seriously some day (maybe Thetans really did fire a torpedo at the earth 4 billion years ago, a torpedo full of Thetan-designed articial bacterium-like machines which use Thetan-written DNA and Thetan-designed ribosomes, etc, machines that the Thetan supercomputer simulations predicted were likely to eventually evolve into multicellular life) then they need to stop trying to confuse the public about evolution.
Members of that same maliciously-misinformed public might end up including the one person who could have conceivably had been motivated enough to go looking for a scrap of 4 billion year old torpedo casing. But noooo... nobody ever checks out the idea, because every single time someone mentions ID, all they say are totally stupid things. ID discussions are more reliably stupid than emails which mention "Viagra" in the subject line. So ID disappears behind the spam filter and no one will ever go looking for the Thetan torpedo casing. And it's all because some malicious fuckwits hate the idea of children learning about evolution, so they attack it by attacking all of science, giving ID a reputation as anti-science.
Let's stop doing that. If you ever spot anyone talking about ID as a theory (or worse, as a theory which competes with evolution!), try to talk some sense into them. Saying totally stupid things will only delay ID ever being developed into a theory. Not that it's worth while to do that; it's probably not, but we just don't know for sure. Destruction and misinformation cause harm, get it?
On the other hand: WhatCouldPossiblyGoHilarious.
Suppose over the next hundred years, humans were to start doing this, and some of the resulting speciments got into wild. Then we had a very serious catastrophe (nuclear war, asteroid strike, etc) resulting in 1) we stopped doing it 2) (nearly) all the cultural records were lost, so there are no documents explaining what FooLab did in 2041.
Fast forward six millennia, to the year 8013. Scientists would have rediscovered evolution, but unlike today's situation, some of the evidence wouldn't quite add up right. They would see, from looking at DNA evidence, that something very interesting happened in a few thousand years ago. Someone would get an idea, and they would be able to formulate tests to falsify or confirm a brand new theory, called Intelligent Design, and they'd confirm it. Actually, they would probably call it something less stupid, but it really would be an actual theory, in every sense of the word.
Then, miraculously, in 8016, someone finds a cache of ancient documents. It looks like some storage device the year 2016 survived, and they're able to pull some internet discussion threads off it. They see people talking about something called "Intelligent Design" and something else about the world being six thousand years old. Since it's an incomplete document cache, they have no idea where the 2013 "Intelligent Design" came from, that it was made up, rather than being derived from evidence or related to science somehow. The 8016ers have no idea where the 2013 idea of a 6000 year old world came from, they just know that people sometimes mentioned it, usually mockingly.
You're in 8016 and you learn this. 6000 years ago, people were talking about some things that you know to be true, in a limited form. (Most of life isn't only 6000 years old, but some of it is. Presumably the 2016 discussions, for which you have incomplete records, were about similarly limited samples.) What do you think?
You think "oh shit, people have gone through this before, and something horrible keeps happening every 6000 years," and you start building bomb shelters. You also start looking at the DNA evidence for an echo, for a 12000 year old genetic node, although you don't find it. But there are plenty of ways to come up with good conspiracy theories for why it's not there. Maybe the 2013 people realized that the 4000-BC-genetically-engineered creatures were responsible for the 4000 BC nuclear war, and hunted them (nearly) to extinction. You need to start exterminating the 21st century abominations now .. or wait, is that exactly what went wrong in prior cycles, and what causes the bigger catostrophe? OMG by head hurts. What are we going to do? WHAT ARE WE GOING TO DO!!?!?!!
The main thing you can do, is when people ask you to vote for the constitutional amendment which legalizes NSLs, say you're going to vote against it and why, and then when election day comes, follow through on the promise.
You say they skip a generation (rather than 4 or 5 generations) to convince us they're not idiots?
Nice job on the comic understatement. That's right up there with revising Earth's entry from "harmless" to "mostly harmless."
"My wife left me because she said I was cheating on her with a dozen women. I was outraged at the false accusation. I had only eight mistresses!"
"The slick car salesman tried to convince me to buy a $250k Ferrari. I was too shrewd for him, though, and avoided the extravagant waste by buying the $190k model instead,"
"It's unfair to characterize me as a crack smoker. All I do is snort a line now and then."
"The cops said I stole everything in the house. As if I really could have carried out that big heavy dishwasher."
Everybody, join in. Write one.
I am shocked, shocked to learn that ads still hype products as being more significant than they really are.
Their they're, yule be ok. Hay, at least you didn't write "it's affects."
FWIW I think anyone who lives at L2 should be proud to be alive, much less immediately spot their typos. Just feeding yourself, trying to get space-crops to grow in the Earth's shadow, must be a lot of work. I wonder how you deal with that. Do you grow your food using some kind of chemical ener... HEY WAIT A MINUTE!
Dude, you just gave away that you're totally an expert at the very topic at hand. Quit pretending to be one of the people who asks questions like some kind of scientist, and start giving us the answers like the obvious space hydroponic chemo-agri technician that you obviously are.
That's really troubling too, because after I read this, I went to change my network's root password and I couldn't find where to do that!
After RTFA it's clear they mean root access to that router, which is the same thing that anyone would have inferred from the mere mention of "back door" anyway. So why add the confusing phrase about the network?
The world is already stupid enough. There's no need to go to extra trouble to make it stupider. That's wasted effort.
Let this serve as a reminder that overgolding can happen in any community. If you overgold, or someone you love overgolds, get help before it's too late.
Even if a treaty forbids Congress from correcting DMCA, it should be easy to do something about it. FCC could ban the manufacture, sale, and trafficking in devices which transmit on licensed spectrum, if those devices require DMCA violations in order to repurpose.
That wouldn't be as good as repealing DMCA, but it would make DMCA irrelevant to this narrow case. Can't unlock iPhones? Ok, unlocking iPhones will remain illegal. But it'll also be illegal to sell locked iPhones. If someone wants a locked iPhone, sell 'em a locked iPod Touch instead, implement the phone functionality using wifi.
Of course: fuck the treaty. Repeal DMCA instead. And fuck all these narrow DMCA-amending proposals which are limited to "wireless devices."
While I pretty much agree with the Just Say No approach to drugs, there is one interesting exception here.
The reason consoles have limited software selection, is due to technological measures which limit access to the device itself, and a law causes the technological measures to also be legal measures. The government is therefore already directly involved in this situation with some rather heavy-handed regulation (e.g. "Thou shalt not install mod chips"), and solutions should not be limited to those you might find in a totally different situation, such as for example, a free market.
Since government force is already being used in this area, it is ok to use additional government force for pro-consumer and quality purposes. Just make sure that this is limited to situations where regulation-triggering technological measures exist. And all such regulation should be automatically repealed, if DMCA is ever repealed.
The counter-argument to all this, though, is that no one is required to use a game console. Sure, once you have one, the situation is fucked up. Obviously no one should ever buy one, or receive one as a gift. Before you spend your money on any console (i.e. crippled computer) you know what you're getting into.
Even so, though, within consoles, the programmers are getting special favors from the government, so there's no reason the favors need be lopsided.
Not to mention, a game where you operate an AAA battery shooting at bombers all the time, gets kind of boring fast. The "wild weasel" missions are way more fun.
Am I the only person who remembers the 1990s? Back before hardly anyone used "ad networks" plenty of us were blocking web ads. It was typically done using proxies rather than browser plugins, but either way, the user's capabilities are about the same.
And if I recall, image dimensions were often a big clue the software used. For example, if you have an img tag with width=728 height=90, that image is an ad, period. You don't care what host is in the src attribute; the dimensions are enough. And if example.com happens (for their own convenience) to use helpful keywords in their path names, (img src="http://example.com/ads/ad12345.jpg") then all the better.
Maybe today's ad blockers are deliberately dumber about such things, perhaps even for the purpose of encouraging sites to run house ads, in order to foster a more responsible web. And if that's the case, cool. But let's not kid ourselves by saying that house ads are unblockable. At most, house ads come with one fewer clues. among several, that software can use to determine they're ads.
No actual quotation, no stating of his case for what his problem with genetic engineering really is, no explanation of what's "creepy and scary" about the specific goat silk example, etc. SImply nothing other than saying he doesn't like it.
Might as well get his opinion of some fashion model's dress design, for all the argument and analysis happening here.
Because nearly all of us vote against the ones who say that. Remember the presidential race last year? Gary Johnson lost. And second place was Mitt Romney, because Ron Paul lost.
These losses were by wide margins too. It's not like Gary Johnson got 48% of the vote. We The People are very united and consistent on this: fuck liberty. That position is as safe as saying you like baseball and apple pie.
Remember that, the next time some cynic says their vote doesn't count. This issue serves as evidence that our votes count very much.
I hate disagreeing with someone who appears to agree with my overall conclusion, but you're making their problem out to be harder than it really is.
Hold it right there. This is Six Strikes we're talking about, not a criminal charge, or even a civil lawsuit. What's all this about needing to prove something, or storing evidence long term? I don't see any reason they would need to bother with any of that.
You're thinking in terms of legal processes, established by centuries of tradition and common law and legislation. We're talking about "strikes," a new parallel system specifically invented to do away with all that inconvenient stuff. Take everything you know about how a copyright lawsuit should work, and throw it away, because none of that applies here.
Personally I'm more concerned about false identifications, but you bought up fair use, which I think is an interesting side problem.
Limited excerpts being fair use? "Fair use" is a defense used in courts when one is charged with copyright infringement. We don't know if they have defined, in this extra-legal system, fair use as being a defense against "strikes." (Wanna take a guess?) But for the sake of the argument, let's suppose they have.
Let's say they deliver a strike against you, and you pay $35 to dispute it. Since you're invoking fair use, you're admitting to the copying (not disputing that your computer uploaded, was "making available" on the tracker, or whatever), rather you're saying that it was lawfully permitted copying, and wouldn't count as copyright infringement had you been charged with that.
One possible strategy they could have, instead of presenting evidence to overcome your fair use defense, would be to automatically fold and say "you're right." You win your pyrhhic victory and get your $35 back. There goes the storage requirement that you're talking about. Game over, and all you had to do was to be among the 1% of people who bother defending themselves and go through the hassle.
Another thing they could do, since you admitted to copying and invoked the fair use defense, is say "Oh, we didn't think of that. Yes, maybe you did lawfully share it. We appreciate critics showing how beautiful a few seconds of our movie is, or showing how the senator's quotation we recorded last year, contrasts with what we recorded him saying this year. We love fair use, since it only enhances the market value of our product. Thank you. But .. oh, while you're probably telling the truth, I'd hate to make a rash assumption. My oh my, you wouldn't believe how much your computer's participation in the swarm looked so much like all the others. Let's see your evidence, that mere excerpts are what you were sharing." Whoops. If you're going to engage in fair use sharing, then storage is your problem, not theirs. Don't have the evidence? Ok. I wonder which way the strike adjudicator will rule. Who will the industry-hired adjudicator believe, in light of you admitting to the copying but neither side having evidence for how much was copied. Maybe you'll get your $35 back. Maybe not.
Either way, though, I don't see a large storage requirement for them.