The DRM code wasn't hacked for the site. they simply found a way to download the encrypted movie, and then proceeded to use an existing program that strips the WMP DRM. there isn't a specific DRM for netflix.
except that we have something called "western medicine" that is much more able (not completely, though) to handle pandemic-type situations. not to mention the lightyear jumps we have seen in sanitation, public health, education, etc. when it comes to disease and treatment. this is simply not the case for nuclear weapons. there is no antidote, there is no vaccine, there is nothing. nuclear weapons are SEVERAL orders of magnitude more destructive, especially when you consider how long an area remains contaminated.
it's a poor analogy. the cellphone world doesn't have a behemoth that has >90% market share. also, cell providers often thrust phones from whoever their latest hardware partner is into the hands of consumers. on the OS side, OEMs install windows, period (or osx for the tiny apple population).
yeah, i know about dell's latest foray into having a linux option, but don't expect that to become a sensation. the point is that with cellphones, people change them all the time. some have some brand loyalty, but price/features (which evolve much faster than in OSes) drive the market.
due to the familiarity, the program compatibility, and many other things of which I am sure you are aware, windows simply has a (de facto) monopoly.
also, people basically NEED cellphones these days; people don't need linux.
I agree with you, but imagine someone who has only heard about "Linux". so this person googles "download linux", and what do they get?
some pages talking about "distributions", which is jargon-y when it comes to software. also, some homepages for ubuntu, redhat, suse, mandravia, etc. and that's just the first page.
granted, an intelligent/motivated person would dig a little deeper and eventually figure it out. but as much as the linux community is SURE that the OS they tout is better than what's basically default, they don't make it easy for someone to break in. i know there isn't one consciousness in the community, but i think the diversity is a double-edged sword. for those of us in the know, it's great, but noobs balk.
why do we even want more people using linux anyway, aside from some high-and-mighty "it could be so much better!!!" mentality? it's not like the support that matters (developers) is going to give out, and it all seems very healthy lately.
I have always kinda thought that this was at least one of the reasons why linux adoption is low among the 'mild computer user' crowd. It isn't easy to explain to them either, since there isn't a corollary in the "windows world" where nearly all of those users reside (with good reason).
maybe with this recent gathering of support behind ubuntu there is the potential for more of a standard-bearer in the linux world, at least in the eyes of those who only use windows/osx.
at least for me, this alone is enough to disprove almost all of the religions. i don't think it precludes the existence of a 'god', but it certainly makes it clear that if there is a god (don't think so), it doesn't give a shit about us.
but that's just me.
funny? more like awesome. computers can do certain stuff super well, but when it comes to a lot of things, they sputter and die. image recognition is going to be one of those things that computers don't do well for many many years.
yeah, i wasn't being jealous about his 'prosperity', I was more pointing out how impulsive he must be. m$ just announced a RETROACTIVE 3 year warranty, and this guy's solution is to just buy a new system. also, as mentioned above, 200 hours of play? i may be a halo junkie, but i've easily played 200 hours of just halo 1.
not let him burn, just sizzle a little.
The console has fewer capabilities than a comparably-priced personal computer these days, and it has only been the exclusive publication deals that have drawn people to buy the 360 at all.
really? i agree that it was a forced event, but microsoft has never been known for their people skills. bash the presentation all you want, but their console is pretty good. i'd like to see the $3-400 multi-core 3.2 ghz computer you have been gaming on.
also, saying that "it has only been the exclusive publication deals that have drawn people to buy the 360 at all" is like saying disneyland is only popular because its the only place where you can find all of those rides.
As a Berkeley undergrad, let me say how ridiculous the BP deal is. While I think its a "good thing" that oil companies are throwing up some cash for something besides oil, they should NOT decide what to research. This deal effectively hijacked a lot of our top people away from their own research to put them on something that BP will eventually own. Some corporation shouldn't be making decisions about what our scientists research, let them hire their own scientists.
This, of course, is aside from the fact that ethanol in America is a retarded idea from the beginning. My chem professor last semester (Jean Frechet) is an expert in polymer chemistry, especially fuels, and taught us the following: In America, where the best source of biomass for conversion into ethanol is corn, it makes absolutely no sense efficiency-wise. The numbers for corn just don't work. Considering all of the other things we rely on corn for, and energy (read: money, space, etc.) required to grow/harvest/process it into ethanol, we are shooting ourselves in the foot. "FlexFuel" or whatever is a diversionary marketing tactic so Detroit and the oil people can look green.
In Brazil, where their climate supports massive growth of sugarcane, ethanol is feasible as a fuel for cars. In fact, it's in almost every car on the road there. Ethanol will work for a few places on earth where a lot of factors come together just right, but it sure isn't a silver bullet for everyone, especially us Ultimate Consumers here in the USA. We need to be pouring money in to gasoline engine efficiency in the short term, and production of super-cheap electricity (which could cut costs in every sector, not just one) in the long term.
I don't know about you, but I don't know any PhDs who are in 'factions'. And can you show me where some of this apparently easy-to-get funding is? A place where they fund you for just being part of a faction sounds like a dream.
The debate between the Church and (insert scientists' name over the many years) was not ever a 'scientific debate'. It was empiricism finally having its say over dogma.
There have been wrong theories held by scientists for as long as there has been science, and there have been scientists who stubbornly defend those theories. But in general, through the scientific method, new theories gain clout through their explanatory power and ability to make predictions. Unfortunately the the systems within which we have observed what we call evolution are ridiculously complex with a whole lot of 'random'. Testable predictions in physics and chem are easier to come by a great deal in many cases, and that has hurt evolution's stance ONLY with the public. But I'm tired of defending evolution.
Sadly, due to crappy education and the relatively technical nature of science, most people are scientifically ignorant. Try explaining radiocarbon dating to someone who honestly believes the earth is 6,000 years old (they are everywhere). Sadder still is that these nutjobs are influencing POLICY for EVERYONE these days. You'll know who to blame when stem cell therapies are available in Europe 20 years before here. Public schools are a mess in this country, and yet people spend thousands of man hours trying to put 'intelligent design' right next to evolution. In their minds, a wizard up in the sky with a flowing robe and beard drawing up blueprints (whilst damning the non-believers no doubt) for the 'perfect' creation.
America is slipping in a lot of ways, and compromising science education isn't a step in the right direction.
As someone who works in the astronomy of a major university, let me tell you that there is a massive amount of evidence for the big bang.
One problem with obtaining absolute proof of the big bang is that, according to the most recent widely-agreed with model, light didn't exist in a way we should be able to detect until hundreds of thousands of years after the initial 'bang'.
Starting with the evidence Hubble collected, and most recently with the Nobel prize given to Smoot and Mather for their work on cosmic background radiation, its pretty much a lock science-wise.
Every time I hear criticism of a strong and widely-regarded theory (i.e. evolution, big bang), I am never able to get a good answer on motivation. What motivation would the scientific community have to want to espouse and stubbornly defend weak theory? I'd like an answer.
Light is red shifted from distant sources because, currently, space is literally expanding as light is passing through it. A simplified version is that of the Doppler effect, which is when a source of radiation is moving away from the observer. Now, if the universe were to eventually settle down and stop expanding, or even start contracting again, wouldn't that preserve the radiation at whatever wavelength it is at? Or in the case of contracting, begin to blue shift it? I am no expert in physics, but i dabble in astronomy and can't recall reading anything that addresses this.
any thoughts?
You may be right about the fact that PhDs are getting more and more specialized these days, but there isn't much of an alternative. Less than two hundred years ago (maybe even less?), it was entirely feasible to be well-versed in the whole of human knowledge. These days, we simply know too much. I have professors that I work with that decry the politics of journal submission, etc. Hell, I have had papers rejected for reasons that are still not entirely clear to me. But I still have trouble believing that filling a technical paper with unrelated (or just obtuse) equations and multisyllabic words will increase your chances of publication. No doubt there are crappy professors or PhD advisers or whatever out there, but at least at my university you aren't going to trick many of the people in charge just because they aren't experts in exactly the field of your interest.
Slashdot Mirror
The DRM code wasn't hacked for the site. they simply found a way to download the encrypted movie, and then proceeded to use an existing program that strips the WMP DRM. there isn't a specific DRM for netflix.
netflix needs to control their streams better.
dupester
from friday, suckas
except that we have something called "western medicine" that is much more able (not completely, though) to handle pandemic-type situations. not to mention the lightyear jumps we have seen in sanitation, public health, education, etc. when it comes to disease and treatment. this is simply not the case for nuclear weapons. there is no antidote, there is no vaccine, there is nothing. nuclear weapons are SEVERAL orders of magnitude more destructive, especially when you consider how long an area remains contaminated.
no UCs on there either. I guess I can keep azureus open after all.
it's a poor analogy. the cellphone world doesn't have a behemoth that has >90% market share. also, cell providers often thrust phones from whoever their latest hardware partner is into the hands of consumers. on the OS side, OEMs install windows, period (or osx for the tiny apple population).
yeah, i know about dell's latest foray into having a linux option, but don't expect that to become a sensation. the point is that with cellphones, people change them all the time. some have some brand loyalty, but price/features (which evolve much faster than in OSes) drive the market.
due to the familiarity, the program compatibility, and many other things of which I am sure you are aware, windows simply has a (de facto) monopoly.
also, people basically NEED cellphones these days; people don't need linux.
I agree with you, but imagine someone who has only heard about "Linux". so this person googles "download linux", and what do they get?
some pages talking about "distributions", which is jargon-y when it comes to software. also, some homepages for ubuntu, redhat, suse, mandravia, etc. and that's just the first page.
granted, an intelligent/motivated person would dig a little deeper and eventually figure it out. but as much as the linux community is SURE that the OS they tout is better than what's basically default, they don't make it easy for someone to break in. i know there isn't one consciousness in the community, but i think the diversity is a double-edged sword. for those of us in the know, it's great, but noobs balk.
why do we even want more people using linux anyway, aside from some high-and-mighty "it could be so much better!!!" mentality? it's not like the support that matters (developers) is going to give out, and it all seems very healthy lately.
I have always kinda thought that this was at least one of the reasons why linux adoption is low among the 'mild computer user' crowd. It isn't easy to explain to them either, since there isn't a corollary in the "windows world" where nearly all of those users reside (with good reason).
maybe with this recent gathering of support behind ubuntu there is the potential for more of a standard-bearer in the linux world, at least in the eyes of those who only use windows/osx.
as a berkeley student and marijuana enthusiast, sweet.
yep: http://noosphere.princeton.edu/
i think i just peed my pants
google "series of tubes"
i don't hate all republicans. just the corrupt ones. (get it?)
and then they will kill us all.
at least for me, this alone is enough to disprove almost all of the religions. i don't think it precludes the existence of a 'god', but it certainly makes it clear that if there is a god (don't think so), it doesn't give a shit about us. but that's just me.
funny? more like awesome. computers can do certain stuff super well, but when it comes to a lot of things, they sputter and die. image recognition is going to be one of those things that computers don't do well for many many years.
feels good not to be obsolete. yet.
yeah, i wasn't being jealous about his 'prosperity', I was more pointing out how impulsive he must be. m$ just announced a RETROACTIVE 3 year warranty, and this guy's solution is to just buy a new system. also, as mentioned above, 200 hours of play? i may be a halo junkie, but i've easily played 200 hours of just halo 1.
not let him burn, just sizzle a little.
The console has fewer capabilities than a comparably-priced personal computer these days, and it has only been the exclusive publication deals that have drawn people to buy the 360 at all.
really? i agree that it was a forced event, but microsoft has never been known for their people skills. bash the presentation all you want, but their console is pretty good. i'd like to see the $3-400 multi-core 3.2 ghz computer you have been gaming on.
also, saying that "it has only been the exclusive publication deals that have drawn people to buy the 360 at all" is like saying disneyland is only popular because its the only place where you can find all of those rides.
new warranty anybody?
also, 40 games? 40 * ~$60 = $2,400
nobody feels sorry for you man, you have too much cash to spend. there aren't even that many decent games for the platform.
http://thepiratebay.org/tor/3738470 looks amazing.
As a Berkeley undergrad, let me say how ridiculous the BP deal is. While I think its a "good thing" that oil companies are throwing up some cash for something besides oil, they should NOT decide what to research. This deal effectively hijacked a lot of our top people away from their own research to put them on something that BP will eventually own. Some corporation shouldn't be making decisions about what our scientists research, let them hire their own scientists.
This, of course, is aside from the fact that ethanol in America is a retarded idea from the beginning. My chem professor last semester (Jean Frechet) is an expert in polymer chemistry, especially fuels, and taught us the following: In America, where the best source of biomass for conversion into ethanol is corn, it makes absolutely no sense efficiency-wise. The numbers for corn just don't work. Considering all of the other things we rely on corn for, and energy (read: money, space, etc.) required to grow/harvest/process it into ethanol, we are shooting ourselves in the foot. "FlexFuel" or whatever is a diversionary marketing tactic so Detroit and the oil people can look green.
In Brazil, where their climate supports massive growth of sugarcane, ethanol is feasible as a fuel for cars. In fact, it's in almost every car on the road there. Ethanol will work for a few places on earth where a lot of factors come together just right, but it sure isn't a silver bullet for everyone, especially us Ultimate Consumers here in the USA. We need to be pouring money in to gasoline engine efficiency in the short term, and production of super-cheap electricity (which could cut costs in every sector, not just one) in the long term.
I don't know about you, but I don't know any PhDs who are in 'factions'. And can you show me where some of this apparently easy-to-get funding is? A place where they fund you for just being part of a faction sounds like a dream.
The debate between the Church and (insert scientists' name over the many years) was not ever a 'scientific debate'. It was empiricism finally having its say over dogma.
There have been wrong theories held by scientists for as long as there has been science, and there have been scientists who stubbornly defend those theories. But in general, through the scientific method, new theories gain clout through their explanatory power and ability to make predictions. Unfortunately the the systems within which we have observed what we call evolution are ridiculously complex with a whole lot of 'random'. Testable predictions in physics and chem are easier to come by a great deal in many cases, and that has hurt evolution's stance ONLY with the public. But I'm tired of defending evolution.
Sadly, due to crappy education and the relatively technical nature of science, most people are scientifically ignorant. Try explaining radiocarbon dating to someone who honestly believes the earth is 6,000 years old (they are everywhere). Sadder still is that these nutjobs are influencing POLICY for EVERYONE these days. You'll know who to blame when stem cell therapies are available in Europe 20 years before here. Public schools are a mess in this country, and yet people spend thousands of man hours trying to put 'intelligent design' right next to evolution. In their minds, a wizard up in the sky with a flowing robe and beard drawing up blueprints (whilst damning the non-believers no doubt) for the 'perfect' creation.
America is slipping in a lot of ways, and compromising science education isn't a step in the right direction.
As someone who works in the astronomy of a major university, let me tell you that there is a massive amount of evidence for the big bang.
One problem with obtaining absolute proof of the big bang is that, according to the most recent widely-agreed with model, light didn't exist in a way we should be able to detect until hundreds of thousands of years after the initial 'bang'.
Starting with the evidence Hubble collected, and most recently with the Nobel prize given to Smoot and Mather for their work on cosmic background radiation, its pretty much a lock science-wise.
Every time I hear criticism of a strong and widely-regarded theory (i.e. evolution, big bang), I am never able to get a good answer on motivation. What motivation would the scientific community have to want to espouse and stubbornly defend weak theory? I'd like an answer.
Light is red shifted from distant sources because, currently, space is literally expanding as light is passing through it. A simplified version is that of the Doppler effect, which is when a source of radiation is moving away from the observer. Now, if the universe were to eventually settle down and stop expanding, or even start contracting again, wouldn't that preserve the radiation at whatever wavelength it is at? Or in the case of contracting, begin to blue shift it? I am no expert in physics, but i dabble in astronomy and can't recall reading anything that addresses this.
any thoughts?
glad someone on here understands english. i'd say this is extremely historical, but you know...
You may be right about the fact that PhDs are getting more and more specialized these days, but there isn't much of an alternative. Less than two hundred years ago (maybe even less?), it was entirely feasible to be well-versed in the whole of human knowledge. These days, we simply know too much. I have professors that I work with that decry the politics of journal submission, etc. Hell, I have had papers rejected for reasons that are still not entirely clear to me. But I still have trouble believing that filling a technical paper with unrelated (or just obtuse) equations and multisyllabic words will increase your chances of publication. No doubt there are crappy professors or PhD advisers or whatever out there, but at least at my university you aren't going to trick many of the people in charge just because they aren't experts in exactly the field of your interest.