Of course, all a hacker needs to do is keep an older model x86 or PPC system around. Obsolete computers are a dime a dozen, and you can keep them running for decades.
How does that solve anything? Obviously if the point of this hardware chip is to identify everyone who is connecting/using X-service, eventually the provider will only allow computers with the chip on the service.
You can keep an old PC running for decades, but what use is a PC that isn't able to do anything?
I seem to remember Microsoft being on the list of backers for BluRay along with all the other major PC manufacturers. I do note it funny Toshiba has such trouble aquiring licenses when they are on the board themselves as well.
..Toshiba is delaying introduction of HD DVD players in Japan because of the unavailability of Advanced Access Content System (AACS) DRM system licensing.
In July, IBM Corp., Intel Corp., Microsoft Corp., Matsushita Electric Industrial Co., Ltd., Sony Corp., Toshiba, Walt Disney Company and Warner Bro. Studio formed the AACS Licensing Administrator (AACS LA) to develop license AACS technology.
Oh, yeah. I'm sure they'll jump right on it and get those licensing terms worked out. What would the group members have to gain from delaying things?
I mean, wouldn't you guys like it if commercials were cut down signifigantly?
Well yeah, I might like that, but that's not what they're doing. They aren't cutting down commercial time because of product placement, they're just heaping the product placement on top of the original ads schedule. If they cut down regular commercial time they would have to make the shows themselves longer to have the timeslots still work, and that would cost them more money all around.
In fact, I bet if a study was done we would find the length of time an episode is has gone down in the last fifteen years already. There just seem to be more commercial breaks now in shows than there used to be. And I know for a fact there are fewer new episodes in TV seasons now (which means more of a show's airtime in a given year is filled with reruns hawking a different set of ads than before) every couple years the preimere week for new seasons moves down a week and the finally week moves up a week, plus many studios hold a little midseason break and show reruns for a few weeks now as well.
If people find sports entertaining and it increases their quality of life to watch them, I don't have a problem with it.
I don't think the parent has a problem with sports themselves, just how much money and effort are poured into them. All over the country you have cities passing bond measures and tax increases to renovate stadiums that in some cases haven't even made back their original construction costs. It's become a neverending cycle of the cities working to outdo each other on the fanciest complex. Then, if a city has more than one professional team, they have to build new complexes for the other sports, too. Meanwhile these same cities have crime issues, homelessness, crumbling sewer infastructure.
I'm all for an enjoyable sports experience, but sometimes it's just more money than necessary for something that's really unnecessary.
Actually, Yahoo! is also independent, so apparently there's a hole in my theory. Can anyone explain why Yahoo! users are less intelligent than Google users?
Remember that Yahoo Mail has been around a lot longer than GMail. So lots of people using Yahoo's Search Engine do so because they are already frequent visitors to MyYahoo, Yahoo Mail, and Yahoo Auctions. GMail is relatively new compared to Google so it was more the reverse effect (people came to GMail because they already used the search engine, as well as the huge capacity).
I have a MyYahoo page as my homepage, but I rarely use the search engine part, as I have Google searches from my address bar in Firefox. I started using Google because I find the results I want more easily, or at least I used to.
When Google was an unknown to the general public, it's results were spades better than Yahoo's marketting infested returns. But since it's popularity has grown it has become just as convoluted by advertisers abusing the methods the engine uses to decide result ranking. It's sad there can't be a search engine that is both accurate and well known to the complete web-browsing public at the same time.
I'd love to see something similar to this in replacing our FDA. If the IDDD doesn't think a drug is worthy for consumers, a drug company might go to a manufacturer-run testing body. Your doctor and you could make a decision based on your knowledge of who is backing the drug. Today, the FDA is the only body legalizing certain drugs, and I bet millions of people have died before the red tape was navigated.
This is an interesting idea, except for the liability of side effects. What happens if the patient gets some horrible disease because of an unexpected effect of the drug on a certain gene. The drug company is going to have the consumer sign a waiver to use the "experimental" drug, as will the insurance company. So when things go south who gets stuck with the costs of medical care for these people? Joe Taxpayer.
It's a very good idea. But what if you toss the camera and it lands upside down?
I thought about this too, but I realized they could simply make the ball's mass off-balance so it natuarlly sits on its "bottom". That would cause the sphere to roll badly, but they seem to push the idea of throwing it. Since the ball is supposed to be able to rotate from a resting position, perhaps the balance mechanism is part fo this. It rolls fine when you want it, and with a push of a button shifts a weight to right itself.
In the US, a car is a basic necessity. Thus, we have to let pretty much everyone drive pretty much anything, since cars are usually the only possible mode of transport. Of course, with less-skilled drivers, you have to set the speed limits reasonably low to keep accidents down.
We don't have to let them drive anything. Just something. THAT would really make the roads safer. Make drivers licenses "graded". Give pretty much anyone that can pass the driving test now a licence to operate a midsize sedan, but make additional training, higher standards, ect apply if you want to drive a 3/4 ton pickup, SUV, full-size van, ect.
It has been repeatedly pointed out that SUV's and large trucks are more dangerous in accidents (especailly if the other vehicle is a regular car) because of the higher center of gravity, more mass, ect of the truck. Yet, we still allow people to drive them who can only handle a small car to just acceptable levels. There have been many occasions where I have watched dangerous maneuvering of large SUV's by drivers who obviously don't know how to handle a vehicle of that size right.
A car may be a necessity in the U.S. (at least in communities that practice land-hog urban planning) but any car will get someone from one side of town to the other. And there are plenty of people who own vehicles in far excess of anything they will ever need as part of some stupid "keeping up with the Johnson's" routine.
To pre-rebuttal people who are going to talk about their right as Americans to own as huge a car as they want, let me point out that the avereage consumer can't pick up a heavy equipment vehicle (dumptruck, semi) and have them to drive around as a private vehicle.
I see cars with worn-out brakes all the time, for instance. You'd think people would notice the loud squeal and get the $20 pads replaced before the $200 brake disks get destroyed...
There are plenty of people who don't want the hassle of setting up an apointment with the mechanic, being without the car, ect and will put it off as long as possible. That's to say nothing of the millions of American who live "paycheck to paycheck".
Besides, the pads are $20, but how much is the labor to get them installed? Another $60, $80?
On that subject, I don't see why the cable company would want me to get a cable card when they could just continue charging me to use their digital box.
Well, they aren't offering it for their benefit, it's to keep you as a customer. Most people looking for cable cards are looking for them for their large plasma screen TV's they have hanging on the wall, not their homebrew PVR;-) . They don't want a bulky, horizontally-oriented converter messing up their clean TV install job and CableCard lets them keep the number of wires on the wall to a minimum.
One drawback: We're still waiting for the cable and satellite companies to get it together on CableCard, so the system has to do without.
Why would the content providers agree to let homebrew PVR's use CableCard? One of the main reasons people build their own PVR, rather than just buying a TiVo for much less, is to have more control over the device and avoid DRM, which is precisely why digital cable/sattelite feeds are encrypted to begin with.
According to Microsoft, the new anti-virus application known as Windows OneCare Live is 'like taking your PC in for a tune up at the service station'....every 5,000 miles
A spokeswoman for the F.B.I. said "we're aware of the possibility" that older wiretap systems may be foiled through the techniques described in the paper. Catherine Milhoan, the spokeswoman, said after consulting with bureau wiretap experts that the vulnerability existed in only about 10 percent of state and federal wiretaps today.
So basically it is a minority of antiquated equipment that is vulnerable. Moreover, the person being wiretapped probably doesn't know what system is being used. It is not going to be possible to know, with any assurance, that you have actually defeated the system.
Well, we don't have any way to actaully verify those figures. They could just be saying that to make people think their systems really are secure. After all, they are the subject of the article, the ones who are trying to wiretap people.
Slashdot Mirror
Of course, all a hacker needs to do is keep an older model x86 or PPC system around. Obsolete computers are a dime a dozen, and you can keep them running for decades.
How does that solve anything? Obviously if the point of this hardware chip is to identify everyone who is connecting/using X-service, eventually the provider will only allow computers with the chip on the service.
You can keep an old PC running for decades, but what use is a PC that isn't able to do anything?
Uh, because the final price includes shipping? Therefore they have to know whereabouts you live to know how much shipping will be.
I seem to remember Microsoft being on the list of backers for BluRay along with all the other major PC manufacturers. I do note it funny Toshiba has such trouble aquiring licenses when they are on the board themselves as well.
You think the Record labels would really complain if people were to "mostly fill up their players from their own CD collections.
Yes. Because they'd rather have me buy two copies of each song I want to listen to.
..Toshiba is delaying introduction of HD DVD players in Japan because of the unavailability of Advanced Access Content System (AACS) DRM system licensing.
In July, IBM Corp., Intel Corp., Microsoft Corp., Matsushita Electric Industrial Co., Ltd., Sony Corp., Toshiba, Walt Disney Company and Warner Bro. Studio formed the AACS Licensing Administrator (AACS LA) to develop license AACS technology.
Oh, yeah. I'm sure they'll jump right on it and get those licensing terms worked out. What would the group members have to gain from delaying things?
I mean, wouldn't you guys like it if commercials were cut down signifigantly?
Well yeah, I might like that, but that's not what they're doing. They aren't cutting down commercial time because of product placement, they're just heaping the product placement on top of the original ads schedule. If they cut down regular commercial time they would have to make the shows themselves longer to have the timeslots still work, and that would cost them more money all around.
In fact, I bet if a study was done we would find the length of time an episode is has gone down in the last fifteen years already. There just seem to be more commercial breaks now in shows than there used to be. And I know for a fact there are fewer new episodes in TV seasons now (which means more of a show's airtime in a given year is filled with reruns hawking a different set of ads than before) every couple years the preimere week for new seasons moves down a week and the finally week moves up a week, plus many studios hold a little midseason break and show reruns for a few weeks now as well.
If people find sports entertaining and it increases their quality of life to watch them, I don't have a problem with it.
I don't think the parent has a problem with sports themselves, just how much money and effort are poured into them. All over the country you have cities passing bond measures and tax increases to renovate stadiums that in some cases haven't even made back their original construction costs. It's become a neverending cycle of the cities working to outdo each other on the fanciest complex. Then, if a city has more than one professional team, they have to build new complexes for the other sports, too. Meanwhile these same cities have crime issues, homelessness, crumbling sewer infastructure.
I'm all for an enjoyable sports experience, but sometimes it's just more money than necessary for something that's really unnecessary.
Actually, Yahoo! is also independent, so apparently there's a hole in my theory. Can anyone explain why Yahoo! users are less intelligent than Google users?
Remember that Yahoo Mail has been around a lot longer than GMail. So lots of people using Yahoo's Search Engine do so because they are already frequent visitors to MyYahoo, Yahoo Mail, and Yahoo Auctions. GMail is relatively new compared to Google so it was more the reverse effect (people came to GMail because they already used the search engine, as well as the huge capacity).
I have a MyYahoo page as my homepage, but I rarely use the search engine part, as I have Google searches from my address bar in Firefox. I started using Google because I find the results I want more easily, or at least I used to.
When Google was an unknown to the general public, it's results were spades better than Yahoo's marketting infested returns. But since it's popularity has grown it has become just as convoluted by advertisers abusing the methods the engine uses to decide result ranking. It's sad there can't be a search engine that is both accurate and well known to the complete web-browsing public at the same time.
I'd love to see something similar to this in replacing our FDA. If the IDDD doesn't think a drug is worthy for consumers, a drug company might go to a manufacturer-run testing body. Your doctor and you could make a decision based on your knowledge of who is backing the drug. Today, the FDA is the only body legalizing certain drugs, and I bet millions of people have died before the red tape was navigated.
This is an interesting idea, except for the liability of side effects. What happens if the patient gets some horrible disease because of an unexpected effect of the drug on a certain gene. The drug company is going to have the consumer sign a waiver to use the "experimental" drug, as will the insurance company. So when things go south who gets stuck with the costs of medical care for these people? Joe Taxpayer.
BSA says:
In Soviet Russia, copyright laws make YOU rich!
No, wait...
It's a very good idea. But what if you toss the camera and it lands upside down?
I thought about this too, but I realized they could simply make the ball's mass off-balance so it natuarlly sits on its "bottom". That would cause the sphere to roll badly, but they seem to push the idea of throwing it. Since the ball is supposed to be able to rotate from a resting position, perhaps the balance mechanism is part fo this. It rolls fine when you want it, and with a push of a button shifts a weight to right itself.
I, for one, welcome our new version 2.0 strength-enhanced rodent overlords.
Try how the superior Minidisk rendered the CD irrelevant... oh, that's another one.
The Minidisc was never about replacing the CD, it was about replacing the cassette tape for uses like car/portable audio.
In the US, a car is a basic necessity. Thus, we have to let pretty much everyone drive pretty much anything, since cars are usually the only possible mode of transport. Of course, with less-skilled drivers, you have to set the speed limits reasonably low to keep accidents down.
We don't have to let them drive anything. Just something. THAT would really make the roads safer. Make drivers licenses "graded". Give pretty much anyone that can pass the driving test now a licence to operate a midsize sedan, but make additional training, higher standards, ect apply if you want to drive a 3/4 ton pickup, SUV, full-size van, ect.
It has been repeatedly pointed out that SUV's and large trucks are more dangerous in accidents (especailly if the other vehicle is a regular car) because of the higher center of gravity, more mass, ect of the truck. Yet, we still allow people to drive them who can only handle a small car to just acceptable levels. There have been many occasions where I have watched dangerous maneuvering of large SUV's by drivers who obviously don't know how to handle a vehicle of that size right.
A car may be a necessity in the U.S. (at least in communities that practice land-hog urban planning) but any car will get someone from one side of town to the other. And there are plenty of people who own vehicles in far excess of anything they will ever need as part of some stupid "keeping up with the Johnson's" routine.
To pre-rebuttal people who are going to talk about their right as Americans to own as huge a car as they want, let me point out that the avereage consumer can't pick up a heavy equipment vehicle (dumptruck, semi) and have them to drive around as a private vehicle.
I see cars with worn-out brakes all the time, for instance. You'd think people would notice the loud squeal and get the $20 pads replaced before the $200 brake disks get destroyed...
There are plenty of people who don't want the hassle of setting up an apointment with the mechanic, being without the car, ect and will put it off as long as possible. That's to say nothing of the millions of American who live "paycheck to paycheck".
Besides, the pads are $20, but how much is the labor to get them installed? Another $60, $80?
So now to drag around very large images on my screen, I stroke myself!
On that subject, I don't see why the cable company would want me to get a cable card when they could just continue charging me to use their digital box.
;-) . They don't want a bulky, horizontally-oriented converter messing up their clean TV install job and CableCard lets them keep the number of wires on the wall to a minimum.
Well, they aren't offering it for their benefit, it's to keep you as a customer. Most people looking for cable cards are looking for them for their large plasma screen TV's they have hanging on the wall, not their homebrew PVR
One drawback: We're still waiting for the cable and satellite companies to get it together on CableCard, so the system has to do without.
Why would the content providers agree to let homebrew PVR's use CableCard? One of the main reasons people build their own PVR, rather than just buying a TiVo for much less, is to have more control over the device and avoid DRM, which is precisely why digital cable/sattelite feeds are encrypted to begin with.
While IE7 hasn't yet hit RTM, you can download [microsoft.com] the Beta [microsoft.com].
You can get a beta of Vista, too. But it keeps losing features.
The point is IE 7 isn't out yet. You're trumpetting up what at the moment is just vaporware.
And there are a ton of new features for IE7...
Yeah, I noticed the new security features the other day when I was ordering my copy of Duke Nukem Forever...
4. Google could make an option to eliminate all pornography from searches if desired.
Isn't that exactly what the "SafeSearch" option is for on the preferences?
According to Microsoft, the new anti-virus application known as Windows OneCare Live is 'like taking your PC in for a tune up at the service station'. ...every 5,000 miles
what is this, an attemt to start the biggest flame war ever? ... what the hell is it doing on slashdot?
Generating a heck of a lot of hits for the advertising on this page, of course.
A spokeswoman for the F.B.I. said "we're aware of the possibility" that older wiretap systems may be foiled through the techniques described in the paper. Catherine Milhoan, the spokeswoman, said after consulting with bureau wiretap experts that the vulnerability existed in only about 10 percent of state and federal wiretaps today.
So basically it is a minority of antiquated equipment that is vulnerable. Moreover, the person being wiretapped probably doesn't know what system is being used. It is not going to be possible to know, with any assurance, that you have actually defeated the system.
Well, we don't have any way to actaully verify those figures. They could just be saying that to make people think their systems really are secure. After all, they are the subject of the article, the ones who are trying to wiretap people.