Well, as just a lay opinion from someone who used to work at a place that sold cell service, the rule of thumb is just that it varies. If you are really concerned about whether or not you will get good service, just ask the place you are buying it from. Read the brochure's fine print, and find out how long you can try it for and give it back. Generally , there is a trial period where you can back out of the contract (used to be 15 days for Sprint.) Just get it, and if it's not what they say, return it.
"The Motion Picture Association of America estimates that it loses $3.5 billion in potential worldwide revenue because of movie piracy."
Perhaps the reason the MPAA and RIAA is loosing 3.5 billion is because spending the money on bent officials?
Isn't that what they just said? Not that I have proof or anything like that, but if I was an MPAA accountant, funds spent to combat piracy (bribes) would definitely fall under 'money lost to piracy.'
Y'know, unless I was ethical, or some such nonsense.
Yeah, but, in _my_ military, as much as I may dislike how the CinC chooses to deploy it, I want that sort of attitude. Granted, I don't want every gamer to think that way, but if the alternative is recruting people who are going to give up and run when they take a non-lethal bullet, bring on the realism. The whole point of an army is you train killers, not good people.
I know security through obscurity isn't a solution, but in this case, security through not being one of the masses may be.
Well, there is a difference between security through obscurity in the algorithm sense, and security through obscurity in the 'dont tell theives where you live' sense. Any malware that is able to determine what you are running is then able to decide if it can disable it or not. Take away step one, and they are just left with a hit list of things that are able to be disabled, and if 'the masses' use the same thing the virus maker will make an explicit attempt to put that thing on the hit list. It's the same thing that happened to Outlook, IE, and any program used by enough of a population. It's not security through obscurity, it's security through variety, the same phenomenon that happens with actual epidemics.
The words let's bomb the world trade center is not illegal.
Hrmm, last time I checked, there were a range of crimes that started "Conspiracy to perform" blah blah blah. I may be incorrect, and you may have to actually do something to get charged with consipiracy to do it, but last time I checked, death threats were illegal. Proposing detailed plans to blow up a building are illegal (didn't someone get charged with plotting to blow up an ammo dump not too long ago?)
Now, addressing the fact that "nothing i can do in my e-mail would be illegal," lets say I e-mail my mp3. lets say I just e-mailed my buddy (or my mailing list) the entire script to a copyrighted movie, without the author's permission? I can do a lot of illegal things with just words and concepts, take a look at IP law.
Well, I have to say that it is a bit different than that. You and a buddy talking isn't really the same as writing a software protocol that communicates between two computers.
I mean, hell, Walmart's business model is nothing more than someone saying "hey, want some stuff?" when you put it in terms like that
IE leaking oil on the road, lots of smoke coming out of it, or parts falling off.
did anyone else read that as internet explorer? that's a great image right there...
The lawsuit isn't over sound quality, and it's no secret that the buy-burn-rip method will allow this guy to do what he claims he can't. Hopefully he'll get nowhere with this.
So, you're saying that users should be required to circumvent the copy protection schemes, instead of the copy protection scheme being compatible with what the consumer wants?
...a commercial plane is owned by a company. A company is a private-entity.
The only public planes would be government owned planes that are provided to the people as a government service. AFAIK, we don't have any of those.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but the primary purpose of a battery in a car is just to start the engine. (Not counting trivial uses like remote keyless entry.) While the car is running, all the electricity to power the systems comes from the alternator. The battery is actually a drain on the alternator while the car is running, because the alternator is constantly recharging the battery.
With a few minor changes, it should be possible to tap into the battery while the car is off, and still leave enough power for a good unlock and start session, wouldn't it? Of course, you're only getting ~ 12.2V, but any bit helps, right?
This is a perfectly good stance to take, and in a world where the government was an omniscent and unerring entity, it would be acceptable. But, say I disagree with the government about what is acceptable or not? Or, to turn it around, say the government changes its mind?
That all still assumes that the government is its own entity. It's not. In order for your government to carry out 'its duty' to know and act on that knowledge, that knowledge has to pass through many weak, fleshy links in the chain. Say you manage to piss off your local chief of police by having consentual sex with his daughter? Ooops, the press was leaked a picture of you doing embarrasing things in your house. The problem with giving the government permission to know every detail about your life is that means any number of people also have that power, and you blindly trust them not to abuse that knowledge.
Even if you never fall victim to that information being abused, there's always the chance that someone goes home from work every day and talks to his family over dinner about what this jackass he had to monitor at work was doing all day long.
Perhaps it's different in the UK, but here in the States, I've lost count of the number of times I've heard a judge say "Failure to keep your equipment working is no excuse for breaking the law."
Well, if the US-Visit database was made avalible to airline databases, and laws were passed requiring all passengers on a flight to get fingerprinted, then the fact that a foriegn visitor with no relatives in the US was flying from one coast to the other may have raised a red flag. Of course then you'd have to record the reason for visiting the US in the database as well, and collect documentation to prove that the visitor was giving a valid reason.
Of course, with all the liberties that would have to be given up to even give that particular scenario a chance of working, I'm not sure it would even be worth it then.
I don't remember the exact price tag of a spy sattelite, but it's a good reminder that the general public ISN'T the targeted market for these sorts of things.
I'm sure a government would pay a pretty penny to be able to see what a person is looking at at any given time. They're not the only ones, I could easily imagine a marketing company buying a few units to move from store to store to see what items get the most 'eye time.'
If you were Walmart, how much money would it be worth to you to know EXACTLY what areas of the shelf are looked at and focused on?
Because it's so much better to have the title 'Anti-Spam Expert' displayed under your picture as you hop about and try to destroy their episode. All you accomplish will be them not having to do anything to make you look like a fool.
If the game is rigged, don't play. Don't dig yourself deeper by thinking that once you know it's rigged, that you can beat it.
That's just it; the RIAA isn't playing for today, they are always looking ahead. As much as I, and most of the/. crowd, hate them, they have a LOT of money to throw around, and I'd bet they have some pretty bright planners working for them.
The MPAA has played HELL with the HD television market, because they are continually updating what would be a 'safe and secure' way to broadcast the new signals. The fact is, I was privy to a training meeting where a corporate trainer mentioned that they might be switching to a connector that will disable itself if the television is opened. Nevermind the fact that this potentially makes HD televisions on the market today obsolete. This is all in the name of copy protection.
We're a community of bigger-and-better things. Does anyone out there still watch broadcast television? Probably, but not as many as used to. What about records? Tapes? 8-track?
If the current trends continue, whatever follows CDs will 'naturally' have copy protection on it. The point is that the RIAA is making it seem like the masses accept and approve of copy protection. Whether or not this is true, if the legislators and others in seats of power believe it, it can easily find its way into the laws and the standards.
Does your congressman care if you believe that the RIAA is evil? Not if the two people standing next to you don't know who the RIAA is.
Does the RIAA care if you like them? Not if the masses continue to buy their product; right now, they're number one.
Step 1: Bring up the subject of DRM, and suggest making it a standard way of copy protecting music. The techno-crowd gets in an uproar.
Step 2: Let it quiet down.
Step 3: Bring up the idea of specially made CDs, and suggest making it a standard. The techno-crowd gets pissy.
Step 4: Let it quiet down.
Step 5: Tag a 'hot new artist's' CD with an easily circumventable protection scheme. The techno-crowd gets slightly upset, but chuckles at the ineptitude of the massive RIAA.
Step 6: Make it standard. The techno-crowd complains, but follows with its trend of complaining only to the techno-crowd.
Step 7: Between driver updates, firmware updates, windows upgrades and media upgrades remove the 'easily circumventable' part. The fact that CDs have 'always had some sort of copy protection' removes ANY legal barrier the RIAA may have had. Who would oppose making the existing copy protection work better? Only the pirates, that's who.
One more reason that cell phone manufacturers need to focus on the big three (battery life, signal strength, ease of use) instead of mindless feature-creep.
As much as I wish that's what they would focus on, they will continue to focus on the holy grail of business: Profit.
I used to sell cell phones, and signal strength didn't sell a single phone for me. As a salesman, I have absolutely no clue what phones recieve better than the others. Sales reps aren't trained on reception, if they are lucky, a customer will let them know which ones they have had success with.
In my experience, the biggest selling factors for phones were a color screen, whether or not it was a flip phone, size, and unique design. When T-Mobile released the phone that swivels around instead of flips down I didn't have a customer walk by without picking it up.
If the customer is uninformed, they will continue to buy phones with buzzwords. Whether or not the sales reps are uninformed, they will continue to sell what makes them the most money. Conviniently enough, they usually know the most about that phone.
This study looks at how wireless networking (WLAN) in London has developed over the last three years from hacktivist pastime to mainstream pursuit. Comparing networks built by freenetwork groups, commercial hotspot providers, and public sector initiatives the study also examines the sales and uptake of WLAN equipment and makes some direct measurements of wireless activity in the Greater London area. Finally the study looks at the development of WLAN in the home and makes a recommendation for a Wireless Festival for London in 2004/2005.
Call me crazy, but this seems like a little more than a listing of the locations of networks, like one might get from the netstumbler-GPS combo. Perhaps glancing at the article before you declare it outdated and done before would be helpful.
That brings up an interesting point. Say the police have a RFID sensor at point A, and a sensor at point B on the same road, 10 miles away. If the speed limit is 60mph, and you get from A to B in under 10 minutes, that's conclusive evidence that you were speeding at some point in time on that road.
Slashdot Mirror
Well, as just a lay opinion from someone who used to work at a place that sold cell service, the rule of thumb is just that it varies. If you are really concerned about whether or not you will get good service, just ask the place you are buying it from. Read the brochure's fine print, and find out how long you can try it for and give it back. Generally , there is a trial period where you can back out of the contract (used to be 15 days for Sprint.) Just get it, and if it's not what they say, return it.
"The Motion Picture Association of America estimates that it loses $3.5 billion in potential worldwide revenue because of movie piracy."
Perhaps the reason the MPAA and RIAA is loosing 3.5 billion is because spending the money on bent officials?
Isn't that what they just said? Not that I have proof or anything like that, but if I was an MPAA accountant, funds spent to combat piracy (bribes) would definitely fall under 'money lost to piracy.'
Y'know, unless I was ethical, or some such nonsense.
Yeah, but, in _my_ military, as much as I may dislike how the CinC chooses to deploy it, I want that sort of attitude. Granted, I don't want every gamer to think that way, but if the alternative is recruting people who are going to give up and run when they take a non-lethal bullet, bring on the realism. The whole point of an army is you train killers, not good people.
I, for one, welcome our new electronic overlords.
I know security through obscurity isn't a solution, but in this case, security through not being one of the masses may be.
Well, there is a difference between security through obscurity in the algorithm sense, and security through obscurity in the 'dont tell theives where you live' sense. Any malware that is able to determine what you are running is then able to decide if it can disable it or not. Take away step one, and they are just left with a hit list of things that are able to be disabled, and if 'the masses' use the same thing the virus maker will make an explicit attempt to put that thing on the hit list.
It's the same thing that happened to Outlook, IE, and any program used by enough of a population. It's not security through obscurity, it's security through variety, the same phenomenon that happens with actual epidemics.
The words let's bomb the world trade center is not illegal.
Hrmm, last time I checked, there were a range of crimes that started "Conspiracy to perform" blah blah blah. I may be incorrect, and you may have to actually do something to get charged with consipiracy to do it, but last time I checked, death threats were illegal. Proposing detailed plans to blow up a building are illegal (didn't someone get charged with plotting to blow up an ammo dump not too long ago?)
Now, addressing the fact that "nothing i can do in my e-mail would be illegal," lets say I e-mail my mp3. lets say I just e-mailed my buddy (or my mailing list) the entire script to a copyrighted movie, without the author's permission? I can do a lot of illegal things with just words and concepts, take a look at IP law.
Funny... I hadn't realized that Shakespear changed that much over the years.
Well, I have to say that it is a bit different than that. You and a buddy talking isn't really the same as writing a software protocol that communicates between two computers.
I mean, hell, Walmart's business model is nothing more than someone saying "hey, want some stuff?" when you put it in terms like that
IE leaking oil on the road, lots of smoke coming out of it, or parts falling off. did anyone else read that as internet explorer? that's a great image right there...
Well, from a parent's point of view, I'm sure running around joining a gang raises more of a red flag then, say, sitting at a computer typing.
Would your dad know what you were doing if you were coding?
The lawsuit isn't over sound quality, and it's no secret that the buy-burn-rip method will allow this guy to do what he claims he can't. Hopefully he'll get nowhere with this.
So, you're saying that users should be required to circumvent the copy protection schemes, instead of the copy protection scheme being compatible with what the consumer wants?
...a commercial plane is owned by a company. A company is a private-entity. The only public planes would be government owned planes that are provided to the people as a government service. AFAIK, we don't have any of those.
At least they choose the right animal. Has anyone heard when SCO will be letting us name their skunk mascot? You mean 'FUD the Licensing Skunk' ?
Correct me if I'm wrong, but the primary purpose of a battery in a car is just to start the engine. (Not counting trivial uses like remote keyless entry.) While the car is running, all the electricity to power the systems comes from the alternator. The battery is actually a drain on the alternator while the car is running, because the alternator is constantly recharging the battery.
With a few minor changes, it should be possible to tap into the battery while the car is off, and still leave enough power for a good unlock and start session, wouldn't it? Of course, you're only getting ~ 12.2V, but any bit helps, right?
Curse you GPS!
This is a perfectly good stance to take, and in a world where the government was an omniscent and unerring entity, it would be acceptable. But, say I disagree with the government about what is acceptable or not? Or, to turn it around, say the government changes its mind?
That all still assumes that the government is its own entity. It's not. In order for your government to carry out 'its duty' to know and act on that knowledge, that knowledge has to pass through many weak, fleshy links in the chain. Say you manage to piss off your local chief of police by having consentual sex with his daughter? Ooops, the press was leaked a picture of you doing embarrasing things in your house. The problem with giving the government permission to know every detail about your life is that means any number of people also have that power, and you blindly trust them not to abuse that knowledge.
Even if you never fall victim to that information being abused, there's always the chance that someone goes home from work every day and talks to his family over dinner about what this jackass he had to monitor at work was doing all day long.
Perhaps it's different in the UK, but here in the States, I've lost count of the number of times I've heard a judge say "Failure to keep your equipment working is no excuse for breaking the law."
Well, if the US-Visit database was made avalible to airline databases, and laws were passed requiring all passengers on a flight to get fingerprinted, then the fact that a foriegn visitor with no relatives in the US was flying from one coast to the other may have raised a red flag. Of course then you'd have to record the reason for visiting the US in the database as well, and collect documentation to prove that the visitor was giving a valid reason. Of course, with all the liberties that would have to be given up to even give that particular scenario a chance of working, I'm not sure it would even be worth it then.
I don't remember the exact price tag of a spy sattelite, but it's a good reminder that the general public ISN'T the targeted market for these sorts of things.
I'm sure a government would pay a pretty penny to be able to see what a person is looking at at any given time. They're not the only ones, I could easily imagine a marketing company buying a few units to move from store to store to see what items get the most 'eye time.'
If you were Walmart, how much money would it be worth to you to know EXACTLY what areas of the shelf are looked at and focused on?
Hold on whilst I don my tinfoil sunglasses.
Because it's so much better to have the title 'Anti-Spam Expert' displayed under your picture as you hop about and try to destroy their episode. All you accomplish will be them not having to do anything to make you look like a fool.
If the game is rigged, don't play. Don't dig yourself deeper by thinking that once you know it's rigged, that you can beat it.
Technically impossible with current hardware.
/. crowd, hate them, they have a LOT of money to throw around, and I'd bet they have some pretty bright planners working for them.
That's just it; the RIAA isn't playing for today, they are always looking ahead. As much as I, and most of the
The MPAA has played HELL with the HD television market, because they are continually updating what would be a 'safe and secure' way to broadcast the new signals. The fact is, I was privy to a training meeting where a corporate trainer mentioned that they might be switching to a connector that will disable itself if the television is opened. Nevermind the fact that this potentially makes HD televisions on the market today obsolete. This is all in the name of copy protection.
We're a community of bigger-and-better things. Does anyone out there still watch broadcast television? Probably, but not as many as used to. What about records? Tapes? 8-track?
If the current trends continue, whatever follows CDs will 'naturally' have copy protection on it. The point is that the RIAA is making it seem like the masses accept and approve of copy protection. Whether or not this is true, if the legislators and others in seats of power believe it, it can easily find its way into the laws and the standards.
Does your congressman care if you believe that the RIAA is evil? Not if the two people standing next to you don't know who the RIAA is.
Does the RIAA care if you like them? Not if the masses continue to buy their product; right now, they're number one.
Step 1: Bring up the subject of DRM, and suggest making it a standard way of copy protecting music. The techno-crowd gets in an uproar.
Step 2: Let it quiet down.
Step 3: Bring up the idea of specially made CDs, and suggest making it a standard. The techno-crowd gets pissy.
Step 4: Let it quiet down.
Step 5: Tag a 'hot new artist's' CD with an easily circumventable protection scheme. The techno-crowd gets slightly upset, but chuckles at the ineptitude of the massive RIAA.
Step 6: Make it standard. The techno-crowd complains, but follows with its trend of complaining only to the techno-crowd.
Step 7: Between driver updates, firmware updates, windows upgrades and media upgrades remove the 'easily circumventable' part. The fact that CDs have 'always had some sort of copy protection' removes ANY legal barrier the RIAA may have had. Who would oppose making the existing copy protection work better? Only the pirates, that's who.
Step 8?
Profit.
One more reason that cell phone manufacturers need to focus on the big three (battery life, signal strength, ease of use) instead of mindless feature-creep.
As much as I wish that's what they would focus on, they will continue to focus on the holy grail of business: Profit.
I used to sell cell phones, and signal strength didn't sell a single phone for me. As a salesman, I have absolutely no clue what phones recieve better than the others. Sales reps aren't trained on reception, if they are lucky, a customer will let them know which ones they have had success with.
In my experience, the biggest selling factors for phones were a color screen, whether or not it was a flip phone, size, and unique design. When T-Mobile released the phone that swivels around instead of flips down I didn't have a customer walk by without picking it up.
If the customer is uninformed, they will continue to buy phones with buzzwords. Whether or not the sales reps are uninformed, they will continue to sell what makes them the most money. Conviniently enough, they usually know the most about that phone.
Well, for all we know, Yahoo might be doing the same, but still, at least I don't know about it.
Maybe it's just me, but I'm a LOT more comfortable having bots scan my e-mail to serve me ads when they announce their intentions before hand.
From the article:
This study looks at how wireless networking (WLAN) in London has developed over the last three years from hacktivist pastime to mainstream pursuit. Comparing networks built by freenetwork groups, commercial hotspot providers, and public sector initiatives the study also examines the sales and uptake of WLAN equipment and makes some direct measurements of wireless activity in the Greater London area. Finally the study looks at the development of WLAN in the home and makes a recommendation for a Wireless Festival for London in 2004/2005.
Call me crazy, but this seems like a little more than a listing of the locations of networks, like one might get from the netstumbler-GPS combo. Perhaps glancing at the article before you declare it outdated and done before would be helpful.
That brings up an interesting point. Say the police have a RFID sensor at point A, and a sensor at point B on the same road, 10 miles away. If the speed limit is 60mph, and you get from A to B in under 10 minutes, that's conclusive evidence that you were speeding at some point in time on that road.
Why not mail you a ticket at that point?