I see several posts that amount to "These guidelines are too vague." Understand how regulations work, and that they are a trade-off: governments are not going to give a specific detailed list of how to address, for example, security concerns in software and hardware. They will not say "All passwords must be length X" or "Passwords must be stored using PBKDF2 hashes with N number of rounds" or "All secure access doors must use a lock with at least 15 tumblers in it." While such guidelines would make liability a lot simpler, they would need to constantly change and no one could ever agree to them.
Instead, the regulations say things like "Use industry-standard best practices when securing patient data." Now that sounds completely obvious to any professional, but understand that security breaches happen most often because these kinds of obvious things are missed!
They then expect the industry to take those high-level requirements and use a bit of self-regulation to determine what exactly the regulations mean. And that naturally changes over time, which is the intent. For example, the industry has decided that this means web sites should follow the OWASP top 10. They seem to have coalesced on using only FIPS-compliant algorithms. And there is agreement that protected health information (PHI) must be encrypted "in transit and at rest." But take that last one for example: does that mean that PHI must be encrypted when transiting across the internet, or across PCs within a LAN, or within devices in an embedded machine, or across chips on a board? That might depend. As technology changes, so will the expectations for what is secure. And without a bunch of congress-people having to argue over it and pass a new law.
Ultimately, companies that want to be in compliance must to prove that they thought about these things and made sensible decisions. Yeah, it sucks that this is vague, but there really is no perfect regulatory solution here. That work is delegated to other agencies and the industry itself.
In reading a Forbes article on VidAngel, they make reference to the 2005 "Family Movie Act" (FMA) that vidangel is using as it's primary defense. The fact that the FMA exists at all is horrible. According to Forbes:
The FMA, as it relates to filtering technology, provides an exemption from copyright infringement for the use of technology in the home that can edit a DVD or an “on-demand’ streaming film on the fly, resulting in a temporary “censored” version of the film. From a copyright standpoint, this simply means that the companies offering the technologies are not required to obtain a license to create the “derivative” censored version of the film.
The frustrating part about this law is that Americans ALREADY had the right to do that. I bought the DVD, I have a license to it, and I can create all the derivative works I want SO LONG AS I DON'T DISTRIBUTE THEM. I am sick of laws saying "You can do X with copyrighted content" because it implies a fundamental misunderstanding of copyright. Copyright only affects distribution of a work. I can take any book I have, and cross-out words, then change character names, and insert epithets, and paint pictures in it, and rip pages out. I can take any DVD I want, and I can remove scenes and dub over it all I want. Copyright has nothing to bear on that since I'm not copying it.
The problem is that Americans have allowed organizations like the RIAA and the MPAA to reinterpret copyright law. So now, we don't own those DVDs we license them. And we don't play the video at all, instead we have a license to a key to decrypt them. The MPAA convinced the courts that transferring the video to our monitors is making a copy. Blizzard convinced the courts that loading a video game into the computers memory to play it constitutes a copy. So all of a sudden, copyright law not only says who can distribute works, but how we can enjoy them and what we can and cannot do with them.
Be careful of laws that "grant" you rights you already had. A law that says "You can now criticize the president in public" would just be a disguised way to take that right away from you, by asserting that you didn't have it in the first place and that they had the power to regulate it.
Mod the AC up. In Brave New World, individualism does not lead to totalitarian rule, it is quite the opposite: The ruling caste makes mass clones of people because they are easier to control, and they exile people who show individualism. To keep them from thinking, they are all drug and sex addicts.
I was about to post how every prior company that did this died, but apparently not. There are a few still around! OMG! I am buying one, because there's loads of movies I want my kids to see, with a few slight alterations.
In my city, there is a rowhouse with a sign that says something like "Deliveryman: Don't even think about putting a package on my doorstep, it absolutely WILL get stolen." I want to put a fake package on that person's doorstep, with a cell phone and a stun gun. A little app would upload the coordinates and video to the internet in realtime. The resulting video would be priceless.
*Total darkness* "Hey Bob, let's see what we got now! *tearing noises, light, a human face appears* Wow, looks like it is a cell ph...Gzzhzhzzzzzhzhzhzhzhzhzhhzhzzzzz AHHH F***K!!
If you're not home, they leave a ticket in your mailbox to pickup the package at the office, which is far less inconvenient then having a package stolen.
This must vary, because I have never seen them do that. Unless the sender requested a signature, they put it int the mailbox or leave it on the front doorstep, just like every other carrier.
It sounds like the only thing you would accept is for the appointees to have no political exposure whatsoever. This same argument happens over regulatory captures: People hear that the person leading the FDA had experience working with a drug company. OMG! That's a conflict of interest! No - that's called "experience." You would not want someone in a leadership position who knew nothing about the topic.
"Draining the swap" doesn't mean "appoint people who don't know anything about the subject and have never held a political office."
Instead, they are used to hire $65K workers to replace $80K locals and to drive wages down.
I see this posted on Slashdot all the time, and I want some proof because my experience is the opposite.
There are two H1B workers sitting right next to me. As a programmer, I've worked with H1B Visa employees for 20 years. I've interviewed many of them. But never have I seen them command salaries significantly different than any other employee on the team. To the contrary, I keep going into interviews and going "they are asking for sponsorship + what salary?!?!?!" And if they are good, they get it.
My Vizio TV is only energy-star compliant at the dimmest brightness level. That's like saying this water heater is only energy-star compliant when the hot water is at 80 degrees F.
If Uber can't fire them, and has no control over their operations, and doesn't pay them a salary, how are they employees? If this holds, then isn't everyone who published an iPhone app is an employee of Apple? They are programmers who set their own hours, and used Apple's app to publish a product, and apple gets a cut of it.
Unfortunately once you add in the batteries, they are no longer cheaper. We need some research to address this. Flywheels? Some kind of more efficient water storage?
With today's energy storage technology, for every watt of solar or wind power we build, we must also have a watt of fossil-fuel power built as well. This is because those renewable sources aren't guaranteed 24/7. Nuclear doesn't work here because it is too slow to throttle up and down. So if you make a 1.21 gigawatt solar plant, you need a 1.21 gigawatt gas-fired plant as well.
We need to invest in new energy storage technologies before the solar/wind payoff can completely replaced fossil fuels. The renewable sources are only cheaper if we: * Include the subsidies * Don't include the cost of the fossil-fuel plant that is operating as the backup * Assume the power generator is near to the power consumer
Hopefully, time and technology will address these concerns.
The link in the summary points to the submission. The submission itself has no links. No sources for the quotes, no nothing. Of course, even without an article there's already 20 comments. That takes RTFA to a new level: There actually *is* no article.
Security holes in these types of devices are what enable the homebrew developer community. Until Nintendo provides support for homebrew development on the 3DS, no ethical hacker should be providing vulnerabilities to Nintendo. Now, if Nintendo put that $20,000 toward providing homebrew options, then ethical hackers will want to help Nintendo since it would help secure their platform.
Although, with the rise of smart phones, there is a much smaller homebrew community on the 3DS than there was on previous generations of their hardware.
It isn't a false equivalence: instead, you moved the goal posts.
First, we made fun of those nations because the government spied on everyone. Now we spy on everyone. So in response, we changed the argument. We claim that it was never really the spying that was the problem, it was that they were blocking free speech. Next, we block free speech. Then we can change the argument again: It wasn't the blocking of speech that was the problem, it was that they jailed people and held them without charges.
In the US, we've been playing this game for decades:
We now have a special jail where we can hold people without charges (Guantanamo Bay). But we can move the goal posts again. We still aren't as bad as those other guys, because they do it on their own soil! We used to make fun of Russia for requiring paperwork to travel, now we require it. But it wasn't the paperwork that was the problem! It was that they had special "watch lists." Now we have them. But it wasn't the watch lists that were the problem! It was that they had to all be personally inspected in order to travel. Well now we do to.
As you can see, we have already gone down the slippery slope, we merely hide it by moving the goal posts. Eventually, the next generation will grow-up expecting this kind of stuff, having never known what it was like to be free. If you find yourself saying "well, we are nothing like place XXXX" then you should pause, reflect, and see if this is the same standard you applied a decade ago.
Slashdot Mirror
I see several posts that amount to "These guidelines are too vague." Understand how regulations work, and that they are a trade-off: governments are not going to give a specific detailed list of how to address, for example, security concerns in software and hardware. They will not say "All passwords must be length X" or "Passwords must be stored using PBKDF2 hashes with N number of rounds" or "All secure access doors must use a lock with at least 15 tumblers in it." While such guidelines would make liability a lot simpler, they would need to constantly change and no one could ever agree to them.
Instead, the regulations say things like "Use industry-standard best practices when securing patient data." Now that sounds completely obvious to any professional, but understand that security breaches happen most often because these kinds of obvious things are missed!
They then expect the industry to take those high-level requirements and use a bit of self-regulation to determine what exactly the regulations mean. And that naturally changes over time, which is the intent. For example, the industry has decided that this means web sites should follow the OWASP top 10. They seem to have coalesced on using only FIPS-compliant algorithms. And there is agreement that protected health information (PHI) must be encrypted "in transit and at rest." But take that last one for example: does that mean that PHI must be encrypted when transiting across the internet, or across PCs within a LAN, or within devices in an embedded machine, or across chips on a board? That might depend. As technology changes, so will the expectations for what is secure. And without a bunch of congress-people having to argue over it and pass a new law.
Ultimately, companies that want to be in compliance must to prove that they thought about these things and made sensible decisions. Yeah, it sucks that this is vague, but there really is no perfect regulatory solution here. That work is delegated to other agencies and the industry itself.
In reading a Forbes article on VidAngel, they make reference to the 2005 "Family Movie Act" (FMA) that vidangel is using as it's primary defense. The fact that the FMA exists at all is horrible. According to Forbes:
The FMA, as it relates to filtering technology, provides an exemption from copyright infringement for the use of technology in the home that can edit a DVD or an “on-demand’ streaming film on the fly, resulting in a temporary “censored” version of the film. From a copyright standpoint, this simply means that the companies offering the technologies are not required to obtain a license to create the “derivative” censored version of the film.
The frustrating part about this law is that Americans ALREADY had the right to do that. I bought the DVD, I have a license to it, and I can create all the derivative works I want SO LONG AS I DON'T DISTRIBUTE THEM. I am sick of laws saying "You can do X with copyrighted content" because it implies a fundamental misunderstanding of copyright. Copyright only affects distribution of a work. I can take any book I have, and cross-out words, then change character names, and insert epithets, and paint pictures in it, and rip pages out. I can take any DVD I want, and I can remove scenes and dub over it all I want. Copyright has nothing to bear on that since I'm not copying it.
The problem is that Americans have allowed organizations like the RIAA and the MPAA to reinterpret copyright law. So now, we don't own those DVDs we license them. And we don't play the video at all, instead we have a license to a key to decrypt them. The MPAA convinced the courts that transferring the video to our monitors is making a copy. Blizzard convinced the courts that loading a video game into the computers memory to play it constitutes a copy. So all of a sudden, copyright law not only says who can distribute works, but how we can enjoy them and what we can and cannot do with them.
Be careful of laws that "grant" you rights you already had. A law that says "You can now criticize the president in public" would just be a disguised way to take that right away from you, by asserting that you didn't have it in the first place and that they had the power to regulate it.
Mod the AC up. In Brave New World, individualism does not lead to totalitarian rule, it is quite the opposite: The ruling caste makes mass clones of people because they are easier to control, and they exile people who show individualism. To keep them from thinking, they are all drug and sex addicts.
I was about to post how every prior company that did this died, but apparently not. There are a few still around! OMG! I am buying one, because there's loads of movies I want my kids to see, with a few slight alterations.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CleanFlicks and ClearPlay
Here is a Slashdot article about ClearPlay and CleanFlicks. The zdnet article link is dead, so use the wayback machine.
Here is another Slashdot article about ClearPlay
Trilogy Studios Movie Mask looks like it never actually came out.
However, everyone who tries to stream DVD or live TV content gets shut down. Here's a few:
Slashdot on Kaleidescape
Slashdot on Aereo
Safari may take a second or two just to open a new blank tab on a 2014 iMac
Not it doesn't: My wife has one.
And with ten or fifteen open tabs it eventually becomes sluggish as hell.
No it doesn't.
Why does it take more than, say, a thousandth of a second to switch between tabs or create a new one?
It doesn't.
Right now, I have a 3-year old development machine, running Firefox, with 20+ tabs open. Hang on.... *presses ctrl+t* Wow, that was instantaneous.
Why did some guy's rant about "Why is my computer so slow?" make it onto Slashdot?
In my city, there is a rowhouse with a sign that says something like "Deliveryman: Don't even think about putting a package on my doorstep, it absolutely WILL get stolen." I want to put a fake package on that person's doorstep, with a cell phone and a stun gun. A little app would upload the coordinates and video to the internet in realtime. The resulting video would be priceless.
*Total darkness* "Hey Bob, let's see what we got now! *tearing noises, light, a human face appears* Wow, looks like it is a cell ph...Gzzhzhzzzzzhzhzhzhzhzhzhhzhzzzzz AHHH F***K!!
If you're not home, they leave a ticket in your mailbox to pickup the package at the office, which is far less inconvenient then having a package stolen.
This must vary, because I have never seen them do that. Unless the sender requested a signature, they put it int the mailbox or leave it on the front doorstep, just like every other carrier.
It can fire them, by removing them from their system.
Apple can "fire" someone by removing them and their app from the system too. By that measure, Facebook can "fire" me as well.
And they are paid wages - on a piecework basis rather than per hour, but at the employers' rates.
I don't understand what that means. I'll have to look it up I guess. I thought they just got a commission after they completed the fare.
Turn the windmills sideways, and put them on top of the smokestacks!!!!
It sounds like the only thing you would accept is for the appointees to have no political exposure whatsoever. This same argument happens over regulatory captures: People hear that the person leading the FDA had experience working with a drug company. OMG! That's a conflict of interest! No - that's called "experience." You would not want someone in a leadership position who knew nothing about the topic.
"Draining the swap" doesn't mean "appoint people who don't know anything about the subject and have never held a political office."
Instead, they are used to hire $65K workers to replace $80K locals and to drive wages down.
I see this posted on Slashdot all the time, and I want some proof because my experience is the opposite.
There are two H1B workers sitting right next to me. As a programmer, I've worked with H1B Visa employees for 20 years. I've interviewed many of them. But never have I seen them command salaries significantly different than any other employee on the team. To the contrary, I keep going into interviews and going "they are asking for sponsorship + what salary?!?!?!" And if they are good, they get it.
My Vizio TV is only energy-star compliant at the dimmest brightness level. That's like saying this water heater is only energy-star compliant when the hot water is at 80 degrees F.
Taking you literally for a moment: If they cannot be discovered, then they cannot be exploited.
Agreed. Came here to post this.
If Uber can't fire them, and has no control over their operations, and doesn't pay them a salary, how are they employees? If this holds, then isn't everyone who published an iPhone app is an employee of Apple? They are programmers who set their own hours, and used Apple's app to publish a product, and apple gets a cut of it.
I am confused why would you say that. Gates investment is exactly the kind of funding that is needed.
Unfortunately once you add in the batteries, they are no longer cheaper. We need some research to address this. Flywheels? Some kind of more efficient water storage?
Rather than repeat myself: same point, made elsewhere in this story:
https://hardware.slashdot.org/...
In-short: solar and wind aren't cheaper... yet.
With today's energy storage technology, for every watt of solar or wind power we build, we must also have a watt of fossil-fuel power built as well. This is because those renewable sources aren't guaranteed 24/7. Nuclear doesn't work here because it is too slow to throttle up and down. So if you make a 1.21 gigawatt solar plant, you need a 1.21 gigawatt gas-fired plant as well.
We need to invest in new energy storage technologies before the solar/wind payoff can completely replaced fossil fuels. The renewable sources are only cheaper if we:
* Include the subsidies
* Don't include the cost of the fossil-fuel plant that is operating as the backup
* Assume the power generator is near to the power consumer
Hopefully, time and technology will address these concerns.
The link in the summary points to the submission. The submission itself has no links. No sources for the quotes, no nothing. Of course, even without an article there's already 20 comments. That takes RTFA to a new level: There actually *is* no article.
yay! Thanks for posting that!
Security holes in these types of devices are what enable the homebrew developer community. Until Nintendo provides support for homebrew development on the 3DS, no ethical hacker should be providing vulnerabilities to Nintendo. Now, if Nintendo put that $20,000 toward providing homebrew options, then ethical hackers will want to help Nintendo since it would help secure their platform.
Although, with the rise of smart phones, there is a much smaller homebrew community on the 3DS than there was on previous generations of their hardware.
Why would I want my phone screen to have higher resolution?
The iPhone 4 was >300 dpi. The iPhone 6 is >400 dpi
It isn't a false equivalence: instead, you moved the goal posts.
First, we made fun of those nations because the government spied on everyone.
Now we spy on everyone.
So in response, we changed the argument. We claim that it was never really the spying that was the problem, it was that they were blocking free speech.
Next, we block free speech.
Then we can change the argument again: It wasn't the blocking of speech that was the problem, it was that they jailed people and held them without charges.
In the US, we've been playing this game for decades:
We now have a special jail where we can hold people without charges (Guantanamo Bay).
But we can move the goal posts again. We still aren't as bad as those other guys, because they do it on their own soil!
We used to make fun of Russia for requiring paperwork to travel, now we require it.
But it wasn't the paperwork that was the problem! It was that they had special "watch lists." Now we have them.
But it wasn't the watch lists that were the problem! It was that they had to all be personally inspected in order to travel. Well now we do to.
As you can see, we have already gone down the slippery slope, we merely hide it by moving the goal posts. Eventually, the next generation will grow-up expecting this kind of stuff, having never known what it was like to be free. If you find yourself saying "well, we are nothing like place XXXX" then you should pause, reflect, and see if this is the same standard you applied a decade ago.
Your experience with OLED seems to match the theory. Blue degrades fastest. Some causes of degredation are proportional to usage, while some are not. As a counterexample however, I have a 2.5-year-old Samsung Galaxy S5, which uses "Super AMOLED", with no noticeable degradation so far. Unsurprisingly, the OLED association claims that OLED lifespan is as good or better than LCD. Wikipedia implies that too, but it sounds like it depends on exactly how it is constructed.
Thanks to everyone who pointed out that China isn't a part of the TPP. *wipes egg from face*