The English Language is not defined by aristocrats carving up the signal processing landscape from on high, but by speakers coining each neologism in the trenches to make their meaning understood amidst evolving noise and evolving needs.
Nearly all cell phones support MMS today, so send a voice clip in a Multimedia Message. That should match the analogy of which you speak.
At our company we collect missed calls via our voicemail system into our same ticketing system where we get incoming emails. So if I want to leave myself a ticket and don't have time to type, I just fire a voice note at my ticket inbox. Tres simplique:3
Bah, spelling won't bother me nor confusing patents with copyrights: I am against both.
In a free market information is a non-commodity. To that end — without copyright or patent — if you were to sell a modded version of Excell, your sales price would approach and eventually reach zero, just like M$'s price on the original.
The win comes from the fact that you would be allowed to fork Excell if you so chose, perhaps providing features many people need. If you or M$ wanted to make money from it, one great avenue would be support: and you would be in the best place to sell support licences to your mod.
The simple fact is: without copyright, nobody has to "spend millions" as you put it, in the futile effort of re-inventing wheels from scratch. Anyone is free to spend minimal up front cost to mod something that already exists to meet their needs, and then anyone else can mod from there to wherever they are going.
Proprietary software is just a way to waste money: both for the consumers, and for the saps who keep re-writing the same code in a thousand different closely guarded ways.
Nobody is saying all nerds like Anime/Manga, but a statistically high percentage do. Additionally, all Otaku (Westerners who admire Japanese pop culture) are by definition nerds.
As to the why, only nerds have the patience or the intellectual capacity to read subtitles, read comic books from right to left, put up with badly dubbed voice acting, and learn enough about a foreign culture to comprehend the wacky Nipponese idioms or Shinto superstitions that are taken for granted across the pacific.
Non-nerds simply cannot do that. Non-nerds must be force-fed their entertainment via cable television. It must be in clearly enunciated English and it must not frighten them, challenge their beliefs or make use of concepts outside their ken.
So, Manga simply makes a much better DB primer than non-nerdy media, such as reality shows or football would.:P
Fair idea, but in Phorm's case it falls apart for clients on Cable connections or any connection where they don't own the demarc and thus cannot change the mac address. Since Phorm tracks by IP, all the cookie/browser/adblocker related measures would do naught to protect you from traffic analysis, or to prevent Phrom from profiling you.
A better approach might be using a VPN, tor, i2p, perhaps even running a Tor exit node to put a firehose of varietal bandwidth through their filters.
This is because Big Media does not spin the commodity (the door, the performance) as the "product". Instead, they spin the consumption of an inexhaustible resource (the ability to appreciate a tune, the ability to walk through a door that never wears out) as the "product" and have become very powerful, very wealthy adversaries to wrest this fictional wellspring from.
So please, enjoy your life and don't let anyone put a toll booth on your senses. Yar, har, fiddle-dee-dee!
Just because people are more than happy to break the law, they can now bully copyright holders into paying unfairly low prices.
I have a better idea. How about if content producers were paid for delivering a product or service. You know, since that is how most of our global economy works.
You see, experiential media is simply not a commodity. It would do you well to stop pretending it is. If you want to somehow make money by producing experiential content, then I wish you the best of luck finding a good business model. The one you are accustomed to is irretrievably broken. It reeks of fail to sell "copies" of recorded media as if they were a scarce resource. They are not scarce, they are infinitely copyable as an inevitable consequence that experiencing the media copies it by definition.
Big Media got away with this for about a century (and books before them for several centuries earlier) simply because copying was difficult enough that copyright was enforceable in a "good enough for production" sense of the word. Now that is no longer true, the badly built boat has capsized and you can't arrest the water for flooding in through the battered hull.
Now, you talk about entitlement. YES, I feel entitled to be able to experience my life. To re-experience parts of my life indefinitely.. in memory or via digital appliance. To archive what I see and hear. To share that archive with others, or mix it into a collage of "original" work to share with others.
Just because your work happens to impinge upon my life — be it because of public exhibition on the radio, or because a friend shares a copy with me — does not sanely give you the right to a chunk of my wallet, any more than your reading this post gives me a right to a chunk of yours.
So far as "being able to make money", well I'm so sorry that your beloved extortion racket has outlived it's profitability. Just because you used to make money charging people for the cost of marketing to them limitless facsimiles of a single performance does not justify eroding our freedoms on our own electronic devices, hampering the innovation of digital storage mediums and communal media sharing services (from bittorrent to Youtube to facebook), and strangling any creative forces that choose not to sell their souls to your oligopoly.
Our founding fathers gave you an inch when they included copyright and patent law into the US constitution (which other nations including the UK have then mimicked in their own parliamentary fashions), and it is safe to say that you have consumed your mile quite effectively. That inch ought never have been given back then, but it is even easier to live without in the nano-priced global publishing ocean we live in today. We should completely eliminate copyright and patent law. Trademark is fine, but the former two have proven themselves to be thoroughly detrimental to the free market.
Morally the scroogey pirates win and the greedy industry loses. In a practical sense we pirates also win (the unethical law happens to be utterly unenforceable) and as long as we act in (financially advantaged) solidarity, we can force the law to collapse so that we win legally as well. It is simply a matter of time and patience.
In the meantime, enjoy your life and don't let anyone put a toll booth on your senses. Yar, har, fiddle-dee-dee!
Hmm, folks here have been saying a lot about wiretapping, and defeating it with encryption. Then they forward HTTPS and TOR as brilliant solutions.
Of course, HTTPS only protects one protocol, and TOR puts you at the whims of the exit node, which may well be government controlled and can not only monitor, but even alter your traffic..
So what is the REAL solution to it all? *drumroll*
IPv6
Why? Because the IPv6 standard REQUIRES built in IPsec support at the network layer. So, once you've got people finally migrating to IPv6, you can be assured that EVERY host you communicate with is capable of automagically encrypting the connection, for ANY protocol!
By itself that still leaves it obvious which IP's you are communicating with, but by then a dash of onion routing would be all you'd need.
I think in this case, the Hitler test is in fact non-Godwin-able.
I'm sorry, but I think you've underestimated Godwin. This thread is now thoroughly forked, and you lose.
You've just argued that supporting freedom of speech will put Nazi's on the ballot and that it would then be impossible to keep them from winning the majority vote.
Godwin's law is a good razor by which to identify when a debate has left the field of play. It's also a good rule by which people can voluntarily choose to censor their own retorts, so that we can save ourselves from ugly flaming threads without government intrusion.
So let us now celebrate and exercise our right (and capacity) to humbly STFU.
Entirely. Goblins, Wizards, Pirates (like me) and even wands all seem to have very different ideas of property ownership. I was very pleased to read about JK touching upon this subject; thank you also for drawing attention to it here.:3
Everyone in this thread â" even well meaning people who support pirating in some principal or another â" are wildly missing the point.
Experiential media (music, movies, TV shows, etc) are not a commodity.
I will not pay $1 or 1 cent per MP3 because an MP3 is not, and cannot be a commodity. It is nothing more than a pattern. It can be indefinitely reproduced from anywhere for free and thus you cannot reasonably attach a monetary value to one instance of it. Period.
Copyright law as it stands today is immoral, and thus by Pirating I am engaging in civil disobedience. In so doing I also find myself awash in content I did not have to pay for. Have you ever heard of anyone fight for their god-given right to overpay? Things that are not beneficial to the advocate in some way will never be fought for.
In spite of this, Piracy is not strictly a selfish endeavor. Just because the average pirate doesn't think far beyond their own financial concerns doesn't lessen that what they are doing is morally superior and our culture needs to adjust to the new realities of digital content.
Ghandi made salt from local seawater in direct disregard of artificial British statutes. He made a statement, but also encouraged his followers to partake in a personal business model that allowed them to illegally obtain tax-free salt. Just because many of his followers never saw past the cheapskate angle of the plan does not make the action incorrect. The law was unjust and the salt ought to have been freely available to begin with.
The political line that I and most pirates draw in the sand is that if we can see or hear it, and have the means to copy what we see and hear, there ought be no law preventing that act. If we can share what we have seen and heard, the same applies. We contend that any law abridging that right is unjust. Business models that rely on unjust laws ought to repent and evolve.
Media companies today suffer the same problem as 1800's plantation owners. They make money by infringing on people's rights, and then complain that their business models could not survive if the injustice were corrected and instead hold their own industries hostage to perpetuate their greed. Inevitably, even after the slaves were freed cotton is still readily available to this day. There was no excuse then nor is there now.
Instead, I welcome new media efforts which use new business models, slash budgets and target specific audiences with small projects instead of multi-million dollar behemoths which somehow have to "appeal to everyone equally" and thus instead alienate everyone equally.
Savvy producers simply don't oppose piracy or try to morally chastise their own audience. Instead they encourage media sharing as an advertising and marketing vehicle and surf this very wave of cheap-skatery to wonderful success.
The old addage here proves true: You simply cannot beat us. You can't fight the tide. Instead, you should accept this paradigm shift and join us. Find new ways to profit and throw off this artificial yolk of copyright and DRM.
It is surprising, isn't it? It says less about software developers, however, than it says about money itself.
AS a software developer, I depend on using more software than I write. All developers are more "end users" than "creators". Thus, we want ways to get paid that don't come straight back out of our own wallet tenfold.
Seriously though, I applaud youtube on this point. I think they did the right thing.
They could have simply taken down the videos, but that is blackballing, is it not? It's easy to forget the thing was even there.
Instead they invent a brand new method of censorship, who's only express purpose is to make it very, very clear that something is being censored.
They are HIGHLIGHTING the problem and they are GENERATING buzz over this fiasco. They are making it clear that they are being legally threatened and demonstrating what the effects of this censorship are. They are doing so under the guise of both serving the requests of T-W and being "kinder and gentler" to users, but really they are inviting users to Get Mad As Hell.
It is counterproductive to be angry at YouTube over this. They will shame TW, the RIAA, and they will back down and this new form of censorship will cease. In the meantime, allow them to make strikes like this on our behalf, and join me in raising some ruckus against the distributers.:P
According to the wikipedia article:
This was invented in 2005, has no motor (easy to miss that point in TFA), and no way to control axle orientation. Images we see are "artists depictions", the scanning tunneling microscope can acheive little more than identifying the fullerine wheels as it travels.
So the car itself is technically "old news". It's winning of science awards, depiction in art museums, and grandizing as an active instead of passive "machine" all represent the new coat of paint we see today.
It still appears to be a great step forward, I just prefer seeing things clearly over allowing people to be dazzled by embellishment.
As is common, there are many half-baked ideas being flung around this comment thread about wireless security. I would like to clear up what I can.
1> There are three major transmission security methods for Wifi: WEP, WPA and WPA2. WEP was badly received from the start and almost immediately broken, this article asserts that WPA is now almost as badly compromised, and nobody has yet made any reasonable threat to WPA2.
2> The major reason many interested parties have not yet migrated entirely to WPA2 is because of certain legacy hardware and software only capable of WPA. For example, pre-windows XP SP3 OS, voip phones, entertainment systems, printers; in the business sector you might also have certain AP's and base stations which will be costly to upgrade beyond WPA capability.
3> It is not helpful to say "wireless is dead" or "everyone should just use cat5". Wireless in general and Wifi in particular fills an important roll for homes and businesses worldwide both to connect devices difficult to reach by wire and for freedom and mobility.
4> No, there is no such thing as perfect security. On the other hand security can be pretty readily quantified, and the impact to WPA is significant if TFA turns out to be correct. While wireless has many strengths regarding mobility, it has an inherent weak spot given that all of your data is blared out into the air in every direction â" making it more easily analyzed by interlopers. This threat is virtually negated by responsible use of stable encryption technology, including WPA2 AES.
5> the type of encryption compromise TFA discusses will allow script-kiddy level attackers to sit outside the home or business (up to a good distance if they have line of sight and a directional antenna) of WPA users and either eavesdrop on your communications (valuable for identity theft and farmable, even if you are joe nobody) steal your bandwidth, potentially perpetrating illegal acts hidden behind your IP address, or possibly hack your machine (from behind your NAT) for use in a bot network. This is just a list of the uses joe nobody's connection might be put to that I can imagine off the top of my head, there may be more.
6> No, TFA is not a sales pitch for hardware. OEM's are embarrassed by any products which might be easy to compromise, and I am aware of none that push product A with weak security in an effort to gouge with product B which instead uses decent security. It's not a sales pitch for "encryption" since AES is a public standard. You might make the argument that it's a sales pitch for computer and network consulting, but that's an entire industry and I don't believe it will ever run out of things to actually do.
So the moral is: WEP (and now also WPA1) are like car door locks. They only protect you as long as wardrivers can preferentially use your neighbors cleartext connection. WPA2 with a well chosen password will provide you a level of security similar to a wired connection, with all the benefits of mobility. While all encryption standards are eventually broken, I see no reason to believe that WPA2/AES will fail in the next decade.
Cleartext hotspots at cafes and WEP/WPA1 connections are not entirely useless (especially if you can use SSL, or VPN / SSH tunnel for anything you wish to protect) but it is advisable to know when your traffic has a relative expectation to privacy and when it does not. It is also wise to give some amount of value to your privacy, if only because you won't truly understand it's worth until you've after you've lost it.
Don't you mean re-named? It's just the thin-client model being sold under yet another name.
I'm familiar with "cloud computing" referring to a way of structuring server-side applications, not client-side. The idea that server side apps with greater reliability might compete with desktop apps (hence your confusion with the thin-client model) is merely a corollary.
When CVS ruled the world, I found it complicated and had certain problems with it: but aside from that loved it and version control in general.
When SVN became available, it's like someone read my mind. It kept everything I loved about CVS, and fixed everything I hated. Coupled with the awesomeness of TortoiseSVN for my windows workstations, I simply have no complaints with SVN. Anything I want to do can be done simply and I've never hit a roadblock.
Keep in mind I use Linux CLI and Windows GUI. If you depend on Linux or Macintosh GUI, then you probably lack a tool like tortoise. If you are on Mac you probably love Textmate's GIT integration.
Finally, my use case is different. I entertain one or at most two experimental "branches" of code at a time, and with no need of collaboration so they are really just local working copies. I am able to commit them to full fledged branches and even merge via SVN with ease but rarely need to. Other developers on my team (there are only 3 of us) tend to keep their experimental code in working copies as well.
I would imagine GIT shines when you don't want a central repo, you spend inordinate time coding with no net connection, you don't use windows, you do use textmate, and/or you have 100 developers distributed around the globe each entertaining 1,000 branches at a time with every branch needing peer review in triplicate before anything touches the trunk. If that paragraph describes you then huzzah, I wish you and git well. But if you are a small team on one or many small projects and need to function reasonably well in Windows environments, git isn't the right fit.
Slashdot Mirror
You are confusing the anti-social behavior with intelligence and/or ability to articulate their thoughts in writting.
I know of know one in the 'Internet' generation you speak of that can write for shit, we can't.
F-, and I'm confiscating your blackberry.
The English Language is not defined by aristocrats carving up the signal processing landscape from on high, but by speakers coining each neologism in the trenches to make their meaning understood amidst evolving noise and evolving needs.
Nearly all cell phones support MMS today, so send a voice clip in a Multimedia Message. That should match the analogy of which you speak.
At our company we collect missed calls via our voicemail system into our same ticketing system where we get incoming emails. So if I want to leave myself a ticket and don't have time to type, I just fire a voice note at my ticket inbox. Tres simplique :3
Bah, spelling won't bother me nor confusing patents with copyrights: I am against both.
In a free market information is a non-commodity. To that end — without copyright or patent — if you were to sell a modded version of Excell, your sales price would approach and eventually reach zero, just like M$'s price on the original.
The win comes from the fact that you would be allowed to fork Excell if you so chose, perhaps providing features many people need. If you or M$ wanted to make money from it, one great avenue would be support: and you would be in the best place to sell support licences to your mod.
The simple fact is: without copyright, nobody has to "spend millions" as you put it, in the futile effort of re-inventing wheels from scratch. Anyone is free to spend minimal up front cost to mod something that already exists to meet their needs, and then anyone else can mod from there to wherever they are going.
Proprietary software is just a way to waste money: both for the consumers, and for the saps who keep re-writing the same code in a thousand different closely guarded ways.
mod parent +1? Slashdot knows better than to give me mod points on copyright articles. ;D
How did Manga/Anime become such a nerd thing?
Nobody is saying all nerds like Anime/Manga, but a statistically high percentage do. Additionally, all Otaku (Westerners who admire Japanese pop culture) are by definition nerds.
As to the why, only nerds have the patience or the intellectual capacity to read subtitles, read comic books from right to left, put up with badly dubbed voice acting, and learn enough about a foreign culture to comprehend the wacky Nipponese idioms or Shinto superstitions that are taken for granted across the pacific.
Non-nerds simply cannot do that. Non-nerds must be force-fed their entertainment via cable television. It must be in clearly enunciated English and it must not frighten them, challenge their beliefs or make use of concepts outside their ken.
So, Manga simply makes a much better DB primer than non-nerdy media, such as reality shows or football would. :P
Fair idea, but in Phorm's case it falls apart for clients on Cable connections or any connection where they don't own the demarc and thus cannot change the mac address. Since Phorm tracks by IP, all the cookie/browser/adblocker related measures would do naught to protect you from traffic analysis, or to prevent Phrom from profiling you.
A better approach might be using a VPN, tor, i2p, perhaps even running a Tor exit node to put a firehose of varietal bandwidth through their filters.
On top of the ads don't forget their nearly ubiquitus "Google Analytics" feature that so many website silently use these days.
After Google's recent behavioral tracking push, they warned me via email that I would need to update one of MY WEBSITE'S privacy policies to avoid legal liability following their new improprieties.
Now I use Adblock and a peppering of few other measures to resist profiling.
Who, Emilie Watson? (And watch the click-through rate soar! ;D)
This is because Big Media does not spin the commodity (the door, the performance) as the "product". Instead, they spin the consumption of an inexhaustible resource (the ability to appreciate a tune, the ability to walk through a door that never wears out) as the "product" and have become very powerful, very wealthy adversaries to wrest this fictional wellspring from.
So please, enjoy your life and don't let anyone put a toll booth on your senses. Yar, har, fiddle-dee-dee!
Just because people are more than happy to break the law, they can now bully copyright holders into paying unfairly low prices.
I have a better idea. How about if content producers were paid for delivering a product or service. You know, since that is how most of our global economy works.
You see, experiential media is simply not a commodity. It would do you well to stop pretending it is. If you want to somehow make money by producing experiential content, then I wish you the best of luck finding a good business model. The one you are accustomed to is irretrievably broken. It reeks of fail to sell "copies" of recorded media as if they were a scarce resource. They are not scarce, they are infinitely copyable as an inevitable consequence that experiencing the media copies it by definition.
Big Media got away with this for about a century (and books before them for several centuries earlier) simply because copying was difficult enough that copyright was enforceable in a "good enough for production" sense of the word. Now that is no longer true, the badly built boat has capsized and you can't arrest the water for flooding in through the battered hull.
Now, you talk about entitlement. YES, I feel entitled to be able to experience my life. To re-experience parts of my life indefinitely.. in memory or via digital appliance. To archive what I see and hear. To share that archive with others, or mix it into a collage of "original" work to share with others.
Just because your work happens to impinge upon my life — be it because of public exhibition on the radio, or because a friend shares a copy with me — does not sanely give you the right to a chunk of my wallet, any more than your reading this post gives me a right to a chunk of yours.
So far as "being able to make money", well I'm so sorry that your beloved extortion racket has outlived it's profitability. Just because you used to make money charging people for the cost of marketing to them limitless facsimiles of a single performance does not justify eroding our freedoms on our own electronic devices, hampering the innovation of digital storage mediums and communal media sharing services (from bittorrent to Youtube to facebook), and strangling any creative forces that choose not to sell their souls to your oligopoly.
Our founding fathers gave you an inch when they included copyright and patent law into the US constitution (which other nations including the UK have then mimicked in their own parliamentary fashions), and it is safe to say that you have consumed your mile quite effectively. That inch ought never have been given back then, but it is even easier to live without in the nano-priced global publishing ocean we live in today. We should completely eliminate copyright and patent law. Trademark is fine, but the former two have proven themselves to be thoroughly detrimental to the free market.
Morally the scroogey pirates win and the greedy industry loses. In a practical sense we pirates also win (the unethical law happens to be utterly unenforceable) and as long as we act in (financially advantaged) solidarity, we can force the law to collapse so that we win legally as well. It is simply a matter of time and patience.
In the meantime, enjoy your life and don't let anyone put a toll booth on your senses. Yar, har, fiddle-dee-dee!
Hmm, folks here have been saying a lot about wiretapping, and defeating it with encryption. Then they forward HTTPS and TOR as brilliant solutions.
Of course, HTTPS only protects one protocol, and TOR puts you at the whims of the exit node, which may well be government controlled and can not only monitor, but even alter your traffic..
So what is the REAL solution to it all? *drumroll*
IPv6
Why? Because the IPv6 standard REQUIRES built in IPsec support at the network layer. So, once you've got people finally migrating to IPv6, you can be assured that EVERY host you communicate with is capable of automagically encrypting the connection, for ANY protocol!
By itself that still leaves it obvious which IP's you are communicating with, but by then a dash of onion routing would be all you'd need.
I think in this case, the Hitler test is in fact non-Godwin-able.
I'm sorry, but I think you've underestimated Godwin. This thread is now thoroughly forked, and you lose.
You've just argued that supporting freedom of speech will put Nazi's on the ballot and that it would then be impossible to keep them from winning the majority vote.
Godwin's law is a good razor by which to identify when a debate has left the field of play. It's also a good rule by which people can voluntarily choose to censor their own retorts, so that we can save ourselves from ugly flaming threads without government intrusion.
So let us now celebrate and exercise our right (and capacity) to humbly STFU.
Entirely. Goblins, Wizards, Pirates (like me) and even wands all seem to have very different ideas of property ownership. I was very pleased to read about JK touching upon this subject; thank you also for drawing attention to it here. :3
Everyone in this thread â" even well meaning people who support pirating in some principal or another â" are wildly missing the point.
Experiential media (music, movies, TV shows, etc) are not a commodity.
I will not pay $1 or 1 cent per MP3 because an MP3 is not, and cannot be a commodity. It is nothing more than a pattern. It can be indefinitely reproduced from anywhere for free and thus you cannot reasonably attach a monetary value to one instance of it. Period.
Copyright law as it stands today is immoral, and thus by Pirating I am engaging in civil disobedience. In so doing I also find myself awash in content I did not have to pay for. Have you ever heard of anyone fight for their god-given right to overpay? Things that are not beneficial to the advocate in some way will never be fought for.
In spite of this, Piracy is not strictly a selfish endeavor. Just because the average pirate doesn't think far beyond their own financial concerns doesn't lessen that what they are doing is morally superior and our culture needs to adjust to the new realities of digital content.
Ghandi made salt from local seawater in direct disregard of artificial British statutes. He made a statement, but also encouraged his followers to partake in a personal business model that allowed them to illegally obtain tax-free salt. Just because many of his followers never saw past the cheapskate angle of the plan does not make the action incorrect. The law was unjust and the salt ought to have been freely available to begin with.
The political line that I and most pirates draw in the sand is that if we can see or hear it, and have the means to copy what we see and hear, there ought be no law preventing that act. If we can share what we have seen and heard, the same applies. We contend that any law abridging that right is unjust. Business models that rely on unjust laws ought to repent and evolve.
Media companies today suffer the same problem as 1800's plantation owners. They make money by infringing on people's rights, and then complain that their business models could not survive if the injustice were corrected and instead hold their own industries hostage to perpetuate their greed. Inevitably, even after the slaves were freed cotton is still readily available to this day. There was no excuse then nor is there now.
Instead, I welcome new media efforts which use new business models, slash budgets and target specific audiences with small projects instead of multi-million dollar behemoths which somehow have to "appeal to everyone equally" and thus instead alienate everyone equally.
Savvy producers simply don't oppose piracy or try to morally chastise their own audience. Instead they encourage media sharing as an advertising and marketing vehicle and surf this very wave of cheap-skatery to wonderful success.
The old addage here proves true: You simply cannot beat us. You can't fight the tide. Instead, you should accept this paradigm shift and join us. Find new ways to profit and throw off this artificial yolk of copyright and DRM.
It is surprising, isn't it? It says less about software developers, however, than it says about money itself.
AS a software developer, I depend on using more software than I write. All developers are more "end users" than "creators". Thus, we want ways to get paid that don't come straight back out of our own wallet tenfold.
Ever try to send a fully encrypted RAR file through GMail? You can't.
Mod parent down "false gossip" :(
Seriously though, I applaud youtube on this point. I think they did the right thing.
:P
They could have simply taken down the videos, but that is blackballing, is it not? It's easy to forget the thing was even there.
Instead they invent a brand new method of censorship, who's only express purpose is to make it very, very clear that something is being censored.
They are HIGHLIGHTING the problem and they are GENERATING buzz over this fiasco. They are making it clear that they are being legally threatened and demonstrating what the effects of this censorship are. They are doing so under the guise of both serving the requests of T-W and being "kinder and gentler" to users, but really they are inviting users to Get Mad As Hell.
It is counterproductive to be angry at YouTube over this. They will shame TW, the RIAA, and they will back down and this new form of censorship will cease. In the meantime, allow them to make strikes like this on our behalf, and join me in raising some ruckus against the distributers.
According to the wikipedia article:
This was invented in 2005, has no motor (easy to miss that point in TFA), and no way to control axle orientation. Images we see are "artists depictions", the scanning tunneling microscope can acheive little more than identifying the fullerine wheels as it travels.
So the car itself is technically "old news". It's winning of science awards, depiction in art museums, and grandizing as an active instead of passive "machine" all represent the new coat of paint we see today.
It still appears to be a great step forward, I just prefer seeing things clearly over allowing people to be dazzled by embellishment.
As is common, there are many half-baked ideas being flung around this comment thread about wireless security. I would like to clear up what I can.
1> There are three major transmission security methods for Wifi: WEP, WPA and WPA2. WEP was badly received from the start and almost immediately broken, this article asserts that WPA is now almost as badly compromised, and nobody has yet made any reasonable threat to WPA2.
2> The major reason many interested parties have not yet migrated entirely to WPA2 is because of certain legacy hardware and software only capable of WPA. For example, pre-windows XP SP3 OS, voip phones, entertainment systems, printers; in the business sector you might also have certain AP's and base stations which will be costly to upgrade beyond WPA capability.
3> It is not helpful to say "wireless is dead" or "everyone should just use cat5". Wireless in general and Wifi in particular fills an important roll for homes and businesses worldwide both to connect devices difficult to reach by wire and for freedom and mobility.
4> No, there is no such thing as perfect security. On the other hand security can be pretty readily quantified, and the impact to WPA is significant if TFA turns out to be correct. While wireless has many strengths regarding mobility, it has an inherent weak spot given that all of your data is blared out into the air in every direction â" making it more easily analyzed by interlopers. This threat is virtually negated by responsible use of stable encryption technology, including WPA2 AES.
5> the type of encryption compromise TFA discusses will allow script-kiddy level attackers to sit outside the home or business (up to a good distance if they have line of sight and a directional antenna) of WPA users and either eavesdrop on your communications (valuable for identity theft and farmable, even if you are joe nobody) steal your bandwidth, potentially perpetrating illegal acts hidden behind your IP address, or possibly hack your machine (from behind your NAT) for use in a bot network. This is just a list of the uses joe nobody's connection might be put to that I can imagine off the top of my head, there may be more.
6> No, TFA is not a sales pitch for hardware. OEM's are embarrassed by any products which might be easy to compromise, and I am aware of none that push product A with weak security in an effort to gouge with product B which instead uses decent security. It's not a sales pitch for "encryption" since AES is a public standard. You might make the argument that it's a sales pitch for computer and network consulting, but that's an entire industry and I don't believe it will ever run out of things to actually do.
So the moral is: WEP (and now also WPA1) are like car door locks. They only protect you as long as wardrivers can preferentially use your neighbors cleartext connection. WPA2 with a well chosen password will provide you a level of security similar to a wired connection, with all the benefits of mobility. While all encryption standards are eventually broken, I see no reason to believe that WPA2/AES will fail in the next decade.
Cleartext hotspots at cafes and WEP/WPA1 connections are not entirely useless (especially if you can use SSL, or VPN / SSH tunnel for anything you wish to protect) but it is advisable to know when your traffic has a relative expectation to privacy and when it does not. It is also wise to give some amount of value to your privacy, if only because you won't truly understand it's worth until you've after you've lost it.
They even build into the APIs current developers of their apps need to implement various features.
Current commenters in this thread need to implement proper English grammar. Didn't you get a squiggly underline when you wrote this?
(IANAGN, it's just that I can't tell what the quoted sentence even means! D: )
Don't you mean re-named? It's just the thin-client model being sold under yet another name.
I'm familiar with "cloud computing" referring to a way of structuring server-side applications, not client-side. The idea that server side apps with greater reliability might compete with desktop apps (hence your confusion with the thin-client model) is merely a corollary.
Bah, I would rather see that rapid disclaimer in TFA than a hundred "why does this only happen on the dayside? der deher" comments in here. :P
s/the great firewall/the internet barrier reef/;
print "lol\r\n";
When CVS ruled the world, I found it complicated and had certain problems with it: but aside from that loved it and version control in general.
When SVN became available, it's like someone read my mind. It kept everything I loved about CVS, and fixed everything I hated. Coupled with the awesomeness of TortoiseSVN for my windows workstations, I simply have no complaints with SVN. Anything I want to do can be done simply and I've never hit a roadblock.
Keep in mind I use Linux CLI and Windows GUI. If you depend on Linux or Macintosh GUI, then you probably lack a tool like tortoise. If you are on Mac you probably love Textmate's GIT integration.
Finally, my use case is different. I entertain one or at most two experimental "branches" of code at a time, and with no need of collaboration so they are really just local working copies. I am able to commit them to full fledged branches and even merge via SVN with ease but rarely need to. Other developers on my team (there are only 3 of us) tend to keep their experimental code in working copies as well.
I would imagine GIT shines when you don't want a central repo, you spend inordinate time coding with no net connection, you don't use windows, you do use textmate, and/or you have 100 developers distributed around the globe each entertaining 1,000 branches at a time with every branch needing peer review in triplicate before anything touches the trunk. If that paragraph describes you then huzzah, I wish you and git well. But if you are a small team on one or many small projects and need to function reasonably well in Windows environments, git isn't the right fit.