You're going to get modded down into oblivion for saying it. But it's true. No DRM means no content. So whether it's in the standard or not, it's coming.
That's why all digital music is currently under DRM, as is all Javascript, photographs, recipes, comics, web pages, newspapers etc.
Really... the only content areas still fighting the DRM fight are: Video eBooks software
And software's easing off in favour of a walled garden approach.
No DRM doesn't mean No Content... it means No Content From A Few Rich Content Merchants (not producers). The content will still be produced, just differently. However, with DRM in place, that's no longer an option. Then the content will be produced, but the limit is put on consumption rather than on limiting means of production.
How the heck can you know what operations you needed to perform on the data in the first place if you don't actually know what the data was?
The summary doesn't really explain this that well... the benefits here (if I'm reading this correctly) are that someone with a HUGE block of ciphertext and the encryption key can modify slices in situ without having to decrypt the large block and re-encrypt. They can just swap out the old data for the new, based on the index.
This begins to have significant benefits when applied to hosted computing (called Cloud Computing this decade), where, say, all your email is stored encrypted, as is the email index, and you just want to add/remove something without decrypting the entire blob. It also means that cloud hashing becomes significantly easier, as does filesystem-level encryption (since we no longer need to depend on block ciphers, but can use a homomorphic stream cipher and then chop it up after the fact).
The big stumbling block to this point has been that the speed gains achieved by homomorphism have been offset by the overhead in implementing the homomorphic algorithms in the first place -- meaning that it's faster to decrypt, modify, re-encrypt.
The other benefit of course is security; with homomorphic crypto, there's never a decrypted version of the data stored, and never needs to be a decrypt/encrypt loop in memory for someone to patch for their own purposes. This means that you can have a database that is handling live data, but never knows anything about the contents. So you can securely offload data management to a third party, and minimize the data transfer to your local server for decryption/manipulation.
Sure, and the teachers should be able to fix the heater when it breaks.
While I support teaching anyone with access to computers the ins and outs of same, expecting your eighth grade teacher to be part security consultant is a bit of stretch.
True, but figuring out phishing isn't being a security consultant... it's applying critical thinking, which every teacher should be expected to model. Figuring out what happened and preventing future events should be left up to the security consultant, but identifying that someone's phishing you should be up to the individual (although anti-phishing structures should, in a world with no friction, be built-in by the aforementioned security consultant).
Phishing doesn't require technology of any great advancement; I've had people try to phish me by asking for money on the street (which then escalates if you engage them in conversation). Phishing is just one part of the confidence game, and turns out to be really easy via computer networks.
The first defense against phishing is realizing that you aren't too smart to fall for a phish -- properly targeted phishes can con anyone.
From their whois record, ru4.com claims to be X Plus One, an "enterprise" data-analytics company with a lot of finance-sector clients.
Yeah, and the fact that ru4.com does not seem to resolve or redirect (the WHOIS record points to http://www.aboutus.org/ru4.com) makes it sound very legitimate:)
So it seems reasonably plausible to me that Chase is contracting with them.
They can contract who they want, but the fact that a random analytics company has to execute javascript on my computer before I can even login to my Chase account galls me a bit.
I don't get why large companies don't bring these things at least under their own subdomains, though.
Yes! And I have chase.com in the whitelist already -- such a move would solve everyone's problem.
Chase is a significant offender in this regard, as they change contractors semi-regularly. I often get alerts about new domains wanting access to chase assets.
But moving under chase.com wouldn't solve everyone's problem; I would no longer know that my data is being leaked, and Chase would suddenly be more accountable for their contractor's actions (as well as having to administer the DNS instead of letting their contractors administer their site.
Really, that's what subdomains are for though; everyone SHOULD be doing this. Of course, the ones you don't know about probably already are.
Definitely my opinion, and I know there are many ways of learning... but in all my years dealing with education, I've never seen a teacher who was able to make students learn... different students just need different ways to be engaged, if they're going to be engaged by the topic at all.
And remember: we're talking higher education here. In fact, we're talking post-degree education in most cases. If the teachers in your schools won't learn anything unless an instructor makes them learn it, you've got bigger problems than the student body and school funding on your hands.
For those with ESL, advancing means to move forward. Grow means to get bigger. BACK IN 2009, the glacier started to melt fast enough that it started advancing on a cushion of meltwater toward Gilbert Point.
Along with issues like this, the global seawater high tide line is rising annually at a measurable level, and there will soon be a permanent route through the arctic ocean. This is all beside what's happening in Greenland, where the ice cap has melted enough that the island is actually rising out of the ocean (due to less mass pushing it down into the water).
None of this is breaking news; the information has been around for years. The spinning is somewhat new however, and goes both directions.
So please; stop the spin and get back to taking the frosty on other topics. This one's so old that even BSD declares it's dead.
What you're paying for when you take a paid course is individual attention and verification that you passed the exams that the instructor gave you. Coursera is great if you're personally motivated to learn the material, but it's shit if you want any guarantee that the person did the work themselves or took the tests. Yes, it's possible to cheat in regular classes, but it's harder to do so when there's at most a few hundred people in the class rather than the tens of thousands in a free course.
In this case, the correct answer is for the school to just pay the fees associated with teacher training. And leave free alternatives like this to the 2nd and 3rd world where they might not have funding to provide it at all.
Actually, the correct answer is to use courseware like this as the core *teaching* component, freeing up resources to manage testing and application training.
Teaching materials should be as low-cost as they can be; it's the training and testing of learned skills that needs some sort of paid adjudicator.
This is something I never understood; when I was in school, there were some teachers who felt like it was their duty to shove the training material down students' throats, and then they turned around and tested the training material instead of the students. Other teachers provided the material, taught the students how to learn from it, and then administered tests that measured the students' ability to handle the knowledge they were supposed to have learned from the teaching material.
In my opinion, the first group wasn't really teaching anything in the first place, and passing tests was as easy (or difficult) as memorizing (not learning) the source material. Cheating in these "courses" was rampant. The paywall did nothing to stop it.
The second group could just as easily have used coursera for the teaching, freeing the teacher up to *teach* students the bits that they were having difficulty grasping. Then, come testing time, the teacher has time to create and administer a test focused on what they expected the students to know -- the coursera tests being a method for the *students* to gauge how likely they were to pass the graded test and figure out where to get help from the teacher, nothing more.
Great. That's where the camera is. I'll have some wonderful footage to provide the cops when assault charges are filed.
See you in court jackass.
That goes back to the article's point... won't you feel like a doofus when you go to present evidence and find out that the battery died just before the assault?
It CAN still be used to update devices. That functionality is still there. Though of course iOS devices have been able to update themselves over the air for a long time now.
I still update via iTunes, because I have more control over the update process this way. Since iTunes is a Cocoa product these days, I can tweak it to my heart's content, profile what it's doing, etc* and in general get it to do exactly what I want. Tethered updates mean if something goes wrong or I want to do a non-standard firmware, I have some way to recover.
* Yes, there's rudimentary anti-debugging in iTunes and DVD Player, but anyone who can actually use a debugger can easily figure out how to make one work. Nib files are wonderful things:)
So when I read about people talking about how they switched to linux because x on windows crashed all the time... that's like having a car with a stalling problem and "solving it" by buying a kit car and building it. Sure that's great, but If you can do that, you could have fixed the issue with the original car if they had tried.
This isn't in the 90s anymore. Windows has been relatively stable for quite a while now.
A kit car is designed for the builder to be able to swap out parts and tune things... looking under the hood of my current car, there is some stuff that I wouldn't touch with a ten-meter pole if it went wrong; I'd take it back to the dealer to get fixed, or if it went wrong often enough, I'd return the car and get something that didn't do that... even if it turned out I had to resort to a kit car to get that.
So really, your car analogy is very apt. Some issues in proprietary systems are too much of a headache to fix, as the manufacturer wants it to remain black-box.
If they changed the definition of antimatter to "has an anti-higgs-boson-field" such that the matter actually has an inverse affect on the universe, that might cause it to have "anti-mass" which would warp the anti-space referenced by the anti-field. However, this is not how we have traditionally defined anti-matter; the original definition was actually due to the fact that the universe has significantly less mass than it should, and "anti-matter" was hypothesized as an explanation. So by definition, anti-matter in the traditional sense has, and is attracted by mass just like matter. Otherwise, we've still got that glaring "mass of the universe" issue.
Of course, I guess it could be that the original hypothesis was looking at it all wrong, and it's not that we're missing mass, just that there's a bunch of anti-mass that's brought us right out the other side... which makes what we're measuring the actual anomoly.
And you could export even the DRM titles as mp3, to burn them on CDs.
No, you have that backwards. You could burn them to CD directly from iTunes, and then rerip them to MP3.
Both were true... most people burned them to audio CD on a CD-RW, but the little secret was that you could also create an MP3 CD of the DRM'd tunes, and then just copy the un-DRM'd files back off. I seem to recall that this wasn't true for all versions of iTunes though; at one point, it burned the DRM'd versions to CD, and at another (shortly after) it refused to burn the DRM'd ones. Can't recall if the "convert and burn" happened before or after that.
Exactly! I don't understand why more people don't invest their $26 million in order to live off the interest?
Why don't more people have their butlers find for them a good financial advisor?
Mitt.
They use iTunes Match. This way, they can upgrade their string quartet, live rock band and new car from the ones hired on the black market to the versions provided by legitimate sources for a low annual fee of $26 (no million)... that $26 million is in Apple Fiat currency, after all:)
How come I didn't see the guy with his HOSTS rant in this thread? This is one place where it would actually make sense. Although it makes more sense just to block the ad service at your router; speedier launching, less bandwidth. Block it in your hosts file too if you're mobile with your Win8 device.
I find that between my hosts file, my local firewall policy and my router's firewall policy, running apps and browsing the world wide web is a pretty zippy and painless experience. For the few places that fail to run correctly, I just don't go there.
So in that sense, I'm more interested in forcing disclosure so people can make informed purchasing decisions than in blanket bans.
I like it... let's put it under "clear product labelling":)
The only downside is that most companies implementing DRM aren't fully aware of the implications of what they're doing... see the Sony Rootkit Fiasco.
For this to really work, there needs to be a DRM equivalent to the FDA... some government body that handles complaints in a timely manner and does a random sampling of wares to verify that the contents are actually as labelled on the package. Otherwise, you get the equivalent of the recent horse meat controversy (which, I'd like to point out, happened even with the checks in place).
You also have the internationalization issue: we get enough lead paint from China stories when things have to be handled physically; on the DRM side, what's to prevent someone from implementing something underhanded/unforseen in a location where there are no checks/penalties? You have to be able to check the entire pedigree and not just the customer-facing product, otherwise someone in Bulgaria may be able to flip a switch and suddenly your game purchased in the US and connecting to servers hosted in Canada and owned by a company in Japan may just stop working... or start doing something like sending your connection data to a third party for analysis.
Say goodbye to feature films and big FPS games for example.
And most textbooks with good editorial values and carefully checked exercises.
And most studio-quality music recordings with professional production values.
And most of the software that does incredibly boring things to help run businesses all over the world more efficiently.
Creating new works is easy and often fun. Creating good new works usually requires a lot of effort and/or specialist skills, which in turn are usually provided by people who aren't the creator/copyright holder but get paid for their contribution like any other job. Take away the financial incentive and most of those laborious supporting jobs disappear, along with all the benefits they bring.
You're absolutely right that the blockbusters with astronomical budgets like Hollywood's latest movie or EA's latest sports game would be impossible without serious financial support, but that's just the tip of the iceberg.
Have you been following the fracas with scientific journals lately? The people putting heavily reviewed work into the system are starting to realize that maybe the old way of doing things is not only not the only way, but possibly not the best way. Sure, Wikipedia doesn't have careful checking on all articles; but there are plenty of texts around that do.
And studio recordings require payment, not DRM. There are many ways to achieve payment, and they don't all require selling your soul to the recording industry and then buying it back with platinum record sales.
Things would definitely change -- however, most of what I see in that is good change; definitely enough to offset the bad change. The only big issue I see is transitional: around people adjusting their revenue models so they can continue to produce such works as a full-time endeavour. Anyone trying traditional models wouldn't get very far.
People like to say things like this as if it is literally nothing, but I do not really believe them. The entire entertainment sector would be completely gutted if they could make no money from their work put into their respective projects. Everything from movies to games to books and more.
Sure, people would still make these kind of things, but it would be personal projects just for the sake of doing them and nothing more. The variety and quality would be extremely variable if these paths weren't tied to their livelihoods anymore and they needed employment in other areas.
Say what you will about blockbuster films and triple-A video games, but they wouldn't be the only ones affected.
One word: Kickstarter.
It takes things back to where they were before copyright, with one big difference: the mob has the buying power previously limited to the elite.
Sure, you'd see methods of production change (advertising via social networks would become very polished and targeted, with heavy graph analysis), but I think the overall quality of product would actually improve -- and there'd be no artificial barrier to entry. Good ideas that worked would get rewarded.
Until they pass a law outlawing infra-red flood lights and the like, there are means of circumvention for those so inclined.
Personally, I think 1080p cameras are a good idea; not so sure about storage of the data generated, nor about how soon after recording the data should be accessible. There would need to be some level of accountability regarding data handling and retention; providing it carte blanche to the police and not allowing anyone else to have it would be bad; so would allowing everyone with an internet connection to mine the data (stalker's dream, and would allow for tracking police officers too).
If your write it down and it's an original work you own it! If you create it as an original work you own it! If it in anyway is a copy of someone else's work you owe them.......Pretty simple review
Wait... so it's only if you write it down? So if I make up a story and tell someone verbally, and they make a movie out of it and make millions, I owe them if I attempt to tell the story again?
This concept of copyright completely hobbles the entire concept of "folk" -- folk tales, folk music, etc, where our society evolves through the creative retelling of traditional stories.
There are many movies that should have made it to folk status by now (in actual society, we use them this way -- words referring to situations in the movies have made it into common language), but we can't, because of copyright. The current mess at least makes some exemptions for this, as well as for other similar situations......such as the fact that I wrote this on my computer, Slashdot made a copy of it, but Slashdot doesn't owe me for publishing it (and neither do you). I can just imagine: I commit a crime wearing something I created myself and using something I created myself. I write down how I was going to do it ahead of time. Any reporting on that crime now violates copyright, where the reteller owes me at whatever price I deem fit. I think I'd set the price at "not guilty" (you see, "money" is a fiction; copyright isn't about money, it's about being compensated).
pointing out that you are indeed ok with blackbox consumerism is not a strawman at all, unless you want to constrain yourself to one specific area? it's ok if you want to do that though but your sweeping statement is clearly incorrect.
but the only items in your list that really apply are (smart)phone, internet banking, and online trading. We're talking about people entrusting others with their data. My car doesn't have GPS; my phone is not a smartphone (I've got a fully rootable tablet for that stuff).
so you are quite happy with blackbox consumerism when that blackbox is the ECU in your car? it's ok if you are, i'm just wondering to what level you become willfully ignorant in your consumerism. you entrust your data to the software in cell phone towers that you don't inspect, to the operating system of your phone, to isps, to routers, to banks, to ATMs, etc... and these are exactly examples of blackbox consumerism that you do indeed use, and that's ok. people like to think they are in control of every aspect of their data and claim they oppose blackbox consumerism but really they aren't. if it makes you feel better to inspect *some* aspects of data services that's great, whatever helps you sleep, but the *fact* is you use plenty of them that you don't inspect that can track your location, eavesdrop on you and control potentially dangerous elements of your travel.
I'm quite happy with blackbox consumerism when it's the ECU in my car or the trusses on the bridge I drive over -- those are industry regulated and have engineering structures in place. Hence, *I* might not know exactly what's going on inside, but I am fully aware of the rules and guidelines (and QA processes) being used to ensure proper behaviour. That's about the level to which I become willfully ignorant -- by knowing what I'm ignorant of and what I'm trusting to others to regulate for me.
I don't entrust my data to cellphone towers; they're pretty weak, are used for tracking and data gathering purposes. I pretty much assume that any time I call a cell phone (or land line for that matter) that anything I say is quite possibly being recorded, and behave appropriately (which isn't to say I don't use them, just that I do so with full understanding that I am broadcasting information, not having a personal conversation). This trend continues with your other examples. If I know what's going in to the black box, what's coming out, and am satisfied with the processes in place to validate the integrity of the box, I don't worry too much; the probability levels of something bad happening end up lower than those for me being struck by a car crossing the street.
However, my original (and my current) point is that this isn't the issue we're discussing -- when you host all your own stuff on someone else's service, the black box is no longer static. The black box is no longer in your possession. Without being able to analyse what's going on inside, you have no idea what it's really doing or who it's doing it for. You have no idea when things are being changed, or how that change process works. This is due to their being very few engineering processes for online services currently.
I like to know when I'm potentially being tracked and how; I like to know the weaknesses in my car's design so I can anticipate them. Likewise, I like to know similar information about services I use online. When this information is not available, I am unable to make intelligent decisions based upon what information IS provided. Hence my original posts.
There's a difference between willfuly ignorant consumerism and informed consumerism; I have no problems with the second. My point is that when you hit SaaS, there's an extra level of disassociation that people normally don't identify, instead putting it at the same level as the ECU in your car, the routing system for your phone/internet/etc. It's not.
Some people may not care about all this, and are fine with black box consumerism. That's fine. But I'm not in that market segment, I'm in the other one.
So you don't use a phone, drive a car, ride a bus, go on boats or airplanes, use internet banking or stock/currency trading? This is just an extremely short list of exactly the things you don't inspect the source code of but are a *lot* more relevant to your livelihood than the things you do look at.
I'm sure you didn't mean that to be a straw man, but the only items in your list that really apply are (smart)phone, internet banking, and online trading. We're talking about people entrusting others with their data. My car doesn't have GPS; my phone is not a smartphone (I've got a fully rootable tablet for that stuff). I actually have the advantage to know what's happening in my internet banking software, and I don't touch online trading (primarily because it's such a black box).
I'm talking about trusting your data to someone else's services; not "black box" as in "do I know how everything I use works, and can I build it myself in a pinch?" Really, a better comparison would be using a credit card, as that's essentially trusting your data to someone else's services --- all that usage data goes who-knows where (whether you're a consumer or a merchant).
So no, source code inspection isn't as much of an issue as source code for services inspection. You can have some level of trust for source code via certification -- but when you're not the one using the source code, you'd need certification for the implementation and operation as well, and because of the human factor, you're unlikely to get certification in either of these areas that is robus (at least in the next decade).
Slashdot Mirror
You're going to get modded down into oblivion for saying it. But it's true. No DRM means no content. So whether it's in the standard or not, it's coming.
That's why all digital music is currently under DRM, as is all Javascript, photographs, recipes, comics, web pages, newspapers etc.
Really... the only content areas still fighting the DRM fight are:
Video
eBooks
software
And software's easing off in favour of a walled garden approach.
No DRM doesn't mean No Content... it means No Content From A Few Rich Content Merchants (not producers). The content will still be produced, just differently. However, with DRM in place, that's no longer an option. Then the content will be produced, but the limit is put on consumption rather than on limiting means of production.
How the heck can you know what operations you needed to perform on the data in the first place if you don't actually know what the data was?
The summary doesn't really explain this that well... the benefits here (if I'm reading this correctly) are that someone with a HUGE block of ciphertext and the encryption key can modify slices in situ without having to decrypt the large block and re-encrypt. They can just swap out the old data for the new, based on the index.
This begins to have significant benefits when applied to hosted computing (called Cloud Computing this decade), where, say, all your email is stored encrypted, as is the email index, and you just want to add/remove something without decrypting the entire blob. It also means that cloud hashing becomes significantly easier, as does filesystem-level encryption (since we no longer need to depend on block ciphers, but can use a homomorphic stream cipher and then chop it up after the fact).
The big stumbling block to this point has been that the speed gains achieved by homomorphism have been offset by the overhead in implementing the homomorphic algorithms in the first place -- meaning that it's faster to decrypt, modify, re-encrypt.
The other benefit of course is security; with homomorphic crypto, there's never a decrypted version of the data stored, and never needs to be a decrypt/encrypt loop in memory for someone to patch for their own purposes. This means that you can have a database that is handling live data, but never knows anything about the contents. So you can securely offload data management to a third party, and minimize the data transfer to your local server for decryption/manipulation.
Sure, and the teachers should be able to fix the heater when it breaks.
While I support teaching anyone with access to computers the ins and outs of same, expecting your eighth grade teacher to be part security consultant is a bit of stretch.
True, but figuring out phishing isn't being a security consultant... it's applying critical thinking, which every teacher should be expected to model. Figuring out what happened and preventing future events should be left up to the security consultant, but identifying that someone's phishing you should be up to the individual (although anti-phishing structures should, in a world with no friction, be built-in by the aforementioned security consultant).
Phishing doesn't require technology of any great advancement; I've had people try to phish me by asking for money on the street (which then escalates if you engage them in conversation). Phishing is just one part of the confidence game, and turns out to be really easy via computer networks.
The first defense against phishing is realizing that you aren't too smart to fall for a phish -- properly targeted phishes can con anyone.
From their whois record, ru4.com claims to be X Plus One, an "enterprise" data-analytics company with a lot of finance-sector clients.
Yeah, and the fact that ru4.com does not seem to resolve or redirect (the WHOIS record points to http://www.aboutus.org/ru4.com) makes it sound very legitimate :)
So it seems reasonably plausible to me that Chase is contracting with them.
They can contract who they want, but the fact that a random analytics company has to execute javascript on my computer before I can even login to my Chase account galls me a bit.
I don't get why large companies don't bring these things at least under their own subdomains, though.
Yes! And I have chase.com in the whitelist already -- such a move would solve everyone's problem.
Chase is a significant offender in this regard, as they change contractors semi-regularly. I often get alerts about new domains wanting access to chase assets.
But moving under chase.com wouldn't solve everyone's problem; I would no longer know that my data is being leaked, and Chase would suddenly be more accountable for their contractor's actions (as well as having to administer the DNS instead of letting their contractors administer their site.
Really, that's what subdomains are for though; everyone SHOULD be doing this. Of course, the ones you don't know about probably already are.
Definitely my opinion, and I know there are many ways of learning... but in all my years dealing with education, I've never seen a teacher who was able to make students learn... different students just need different ways to be engaged, if they're going to be engaged by the topic at all.
And remember: we're talking higher education here. In fact, we're talking post-degree education in most cases. If the teachers in your schools won't learn anything unless an instructor makes them learn it, you've got bigger problems than the student body and school funding on your hands.
This is just getting painful....
http://www.davidicke.com/articles/planetary-change-mainmenu-66/23903-alaskas-hubbard-glacier-advancing-seven-feet-a-day
For those with ESL, advancing means to move forward. Grow means to get bigger. BACK IN 2009, the glacier started to melt fast enough that it started advancing on a cushion of meltwater toward Gilbert Point.
Along with issues like this, the global seawater high tide line is rising annually at a measurable level, and there will soon be a permanent route through the arctic ocean. This is all beside what's happening in Greenland, where the ice cap has melted enough that the island is actually rising out of the ocean (due to less mass pushing it down into the water).
None of this is breaking news; the information has been around for years. The spinning is somewhat new however, and goes both directions.
So please; stop the spin and get back to taking the frosty on other topics. This one's so old that even BSD declares it's dead.
Your automated posting system is slipping... there's an entire on-topic discussion thread above this!
What you're paying for when you take a paid course is individual attention and verification that you passed the exams that the instructor gave you. Coursera is great if you're personally motivated to learn the material, but it's shit if you want any guarantee that the person did the work themselves or took the tests. Yes, it's possible to cheat in regular classes, but it's harder to do so when there's at most a few hundred people in the class rather than the tens of thousands in a free course.
In this case, the correct answer is for the school to just pay the fees associated with teacher training. And leave free alternatives like this to the 2nd and 3rd world where they might not have funding to provide it at all.
Actually, the correct answer is to use courseware like this as the core *teaching* component, freeing up resources to manage testing and application training.
Teaching materials should be as low-cost as they can be; it's the training and testing of learned skills that needs some sort of paid adjudicator.
This is something I never understood; when I was in school, there were some teachers who felt like it was their duty to shove the training material down students' throats, and then they turned around and tested the training material instead of the students. Other teachers provided the material, taught the students how to learn from it, and then administered tests that measured the students' ability to handle the knowledge they were supposed to have learned from the teaching material.
In my opinion, the first group wasn't really teaching anything in the first place, and passing tests was as easy (or difficult) as memorizing (not learning) the source material. Cheating in these "courses" was rampant. The paywall did nothing to stop it.
The second group could just as easily have used coursera for the teaching, freeing the teacher up to *teach* students the bits that they were having difficulty grasping. Then, come testing time, the teacher has time to create and administer a test focused on what they expected the students to know -- the coursera tests being a method for the *students* to gauge how likely they were to pass the graded test and figure out where to get help from the teacher, nothing more.
Great. That's where the camera is. I'll have some wonderful footage to provide the cops when assault charges are filed.
See you in court jackass.
That goes back to the article's point... won't you feel like a doofus when you go to present evidence and find out that the battery died just before the assault?
I stand corrected; you are absolutely right. And the various conclusions can be extrapolated from your concise response :)
I should pare back my parallel processing a few notches.
Its still used to update devices!?
It CAN still be used to update devices. That functionality is still there. Though of course iOS devices have been able to update themselves over the air for a long time now.
I still update via iTunes, because I have more control over the update process this way. Since iTunes is a Cocoa product these days, I can tweak it to my heart's content, profile what it's doing, etc* and in general get it to do exactly what I want. Tethered updates mean if something goes wrong or I want to do a non-standard firmware, I have some way to recover.
* Yes, there's rudimentary anti-debugging in iTunes and DVD Player, but anyone who can actually use a debugger can easily figure out how to make one work. Nib files are wonderful things :)
So when I read about people talking about how they switched to linux because x on windows crashed all the time... that's like having a car with a stalling problem and "solving it" by buying a kit car and building it. Sure that's great, but If you can do that, you could have fixed the issue with the original car if they had tried.
This isn't in the 90s anymore. Windows has been relatively stable for quite a while now.
A kit car is designed for the builder to be able to swap out parts and tune things... looking under the hood of my current car, there is some stuff that I wouldn't touch with a ten-meter pole if it went wrong; I'd take it back to the dealer to get fixed, or if it went wrong often enough, I'd return the car and get something that didn't do that... even if it turned out I had to resort to a kit car to get that.
So really, your car analogy is very apt. Some issues in proprietary systems are too much of a headache to fix, as the manufacturer wants it to remain black-box.
If they changed the definition of antimatter to "has an anti-higgs-boson-field" such that the matter actually has an inverse affect on the universe, that might cause it to have "anti-mass" which would warp the anti-space referenced by the anti-field. However, this is not how we have traditionally defined anti-matter; the original definition was actually due to the fact that the universe has significantly less mass than it should, and "anti-matter" was hypothesized as an explanation. So by definition, anti-matter in the traditional sense has, and is attracted by mass just like matter. Otherwise, we've still got that glaring "mass of the universe" issue.
Of course, I guess it could be that the original hypothesis was looking at it all wrong, and it's not that we're missing mass, just that there's a bunch of anti-mass that's brought us right out the other side... which makes what we're measuring the actual anomoly.
And you could export even the DRM titles as mp3, to burn them on CDs.
No, you have that backwards. You could burn them to CD directly from iTunes, and then rerip them to MP3.
Both were true... most people burned them to audio CD on a CD-RW, but the little secret was that you could also create an MP3 CD of the DRM'd tunes, and then just copy the un-DRM'd files back off. I seem to recall that this wasn't true for all versions of iTunes though; at one point, it burned the DRM'd versions to CD, and at another (shortly after) it refused to burn the DRM'd ones. Can't recall if the "convert and burn" happened before or after that.
Exactly! I don't understand why more people don't invest their $26 million in order to live off the interest?
Why don't more people have their butlers find for them a good financial advisor?
Mitt.
They use iTunes Match. This way, they can upgrade their string quartet, live rock band and new car from the ones hired on the black market to the versions provided by legitimate sources for a low annual fee of $26 (no million)... that $26 million is in Apple Fiat currency, after all :)
How come I didn't see the guy with his HOSTS rant in this thread? This is one place where it would actually make sense.
Although it makes more sense just to block the ad service at your router; speedier launching, less bandwidth. Block it in your hosts file too if you're mobile with your Win8 device.
I find that between my hosts file, my local firewall policy and my router's firewall policy, running apps and browsing the world wide web is a pretty zippy and painless experience. For the few places that fail to run correctly, I just don't go there.
So in that sense, I'm more interested in forcing disclosure so people can make informed purchasing decisions than in blanket bans.
I like it... let's put it under "clear product labelling" :)
The only downside is that most companies implementing DRM aren't fully aware of the implications of what they're doing... see the Sony Rootkit Fiasco.
For this to really work, there needs to be a DRM equivalent to the FDA... some government body that handles complaints in a timely manner and does a random sampling of wares to verify that the contents are actually as labelled on the package. Otherwise, you get the equivalent of the recent horse meat controversy (which, I'd like to point out, happened even with the checks in place).
You also have the internationalization issue: we get enough lead paint from China stories when things have to be handled physically; on the DRM side, what's to prevent someone from implementing something underhanded/unforseen in a location where there are no checks/penalties? You have to be able to check the entire pedigree and not just the customer-facing product, otherwise someone in Bulgaria may be able to flip a switch and suddenly your game purchased in the US and connecting to servers hosted in Canada and owned by a company in Japan may just stop working... or start doing something like sending your connection data to a third party for analysis.
Say goodbye to feature films and big FPS games for example.
And most textbooks with good editorial values and carefully checked exercises.
And most studio-quality music recordings with professional production values.
And most of the software that does incredibly boring things to help run businesses all over the world more efficiently.
Creating new works is easy and often fun. Creating good new works usually requires a lot of effort and/or specialist skills, which in turn are usually provided by people who aren't the creator/copyright holder but get paid for their contribution like any other job. Take away the financial incentive and most of those laborious supporting jobs disappear, along with all the benefits they bring.
You're absolutely right that the blockbusters with astronomical budgets like Hollywood's latest movie or EA's latest sports game would be impossible without serious financial support, but that's just the tip of the iceberg.
Have you been following the fracas with scientific journals lately? The people putting heavily reviewed work into the system are starting to realize that maybe the old way of doing things is not only not the only way, but possibly not the best way. Sure, Wikipedia doesn't have careful checking on all articles; but there are plenty of texts around that do.
And studio recordings require payment, not DRM. There are many ways to achieve payment, and they don't all require selling your soul to the recording industry and then buying it back with platinum record sales.
Things would definitely change -- however, most of what I see in that is good change; definitely enough to offset the bad change. The only big issue I see is transitional: around people adjusting their revenue models so they can continue to produce such works as a full-time endeavour. Anyone trying traditional models wouldn't get very far.
People like to say things like this as if it is literally nothing, but I do not really believe them. The entire entertainment sector would be completely gutted if they could make no money from their work put into their respective projects. Everything from movies to games to books and more.
Sure, people would still make these kind of things, but it would be personal projects just for the sake of doing them and nothing more. The variety and quality would be extremely variable if these paths weren't tied to their livelihoods anymore and they needed employment in other areas.
Say what you will about blockbuster films and triple-A video games, but they wouldn't be the only ones affected.
One word: Kickstarter.
It takes things back to where they were before copyright, with one big difference: the mob has the buying power previously limited to the elite.
Sure, you'd see methods of production change (advertising via social networks would become very polished and targeted, with heavy graph analysis), but I think the overall quality of product would actually improve -- and there'd be no artificial barrier to entry. Good ideas that worked would get rewarded.
That makes no sense for me, specially because the ugly fingerprints hehe..
"full-hand touch, five-finger touch, hovering above the screen, pushing, and pulling."
The part that intrigues me is that it can be used in a touchless manner. This has excellent potential for cheap kiosks, LCD windows, etc.
My question is: they appear to be giving away the information for free... so is it patented?
Until they pass a law outlawing infra-red flood lights and the like, there are means of circumvention for those so inclined.
Personally, I think 1080p cameras are a good idea; not so sure about storage of the data generated, nor about how soon after recording the data should be accessible. There would need to be some level of accountability regarding data handling and retention; providing it carte blanche to the police and not allowing anyone else to have it would be bad; so would allowing everyone with an internet connection to mine the data (stalker's dream, and would allow for tracking police officers too).
You do realize that Disney owns copyright and trade marks on your name, correct?
If your write it down and it's an original work you own it! If you create it as an original work you own it! If it in anyway is a copy of someone else's work you owe them. ......Pretty simple review
Wait... so it's only if you write it down? So if I make up a story and tell someone verbally, and they make a movie out of it and make millions, I owe them if I attempt to tell the story again?
This concept of copyright completely hobbles the entire concept of "folk" -- folk tales, folk music, etc, where our society evolves through the creative retelling of traditional stories.
There are many movies that should have made it to folk status by now (in actual society, we use them this way -- words referring to situations in the movies have made it into common language), but we can't, because of copyright. The current mess at least makes some exemptions for this, as well as for other similar situations... ...such as the fact that I wrote this on my computer, Slashdot made a copy of it, but Slashdot doesn't owe me for publishing it (and neither do you). I can just imagine: I commit a crime wearing something I created myself and using something I created myself. I write down how I was going to do it ahead of time. Any reporting on that crime now violates copyright, where the reteller owes me at whatever price I deem fit. I think I'd set the price at "not guilty" (you see, "money" is a fiction; copyright isn't about money, it's about being compensated).
[/rant]
I'm sure you didn't mean that to be a straw man
pointing out that you are indeed ok with blackbox consumerism is not a strawman at all, unless you want to constrain yourself to one specific area? it's ok if you want to do that though but your sweeping statement is clearly incorrect.
but the only items in your list that really apply are (smart)phone, internet banking, and online trading. We're talking about people entrusting others with their data. My car doesn't have GPS; my phone is not a smartphone (I've got a fully rootable tablet for that stuff).
so you are quite happy with blackbox consumerism when that blackbox is the ECU in your car? it's ok if you are, i'm just wondering to what level you become willfully ignorant in your consumerism. you entrust your data to the software in cell phone towers that you don't inspect, to the operating system of your phone, to isps, to routers, to banks, to ATMs, etc... and these are exactly examples of blackbox consumerism that you do indeed use, and that's ok. people like to think they are in control of every aspect of their data and claim they oppose blackbox consumerism but really they aren't. if it makes you feel better to inspect *some* aspects of data services that's great, whatever helps you sleep, but the *fact* is you use plenty of them that you don't inspect that can track your location, eavesdrop on you and control potentially dangerous elements of your travel.
I'm quite happy with blackbox consumerism when it's the ECU in my car or the trusses on the bridge I drive over -- those are industry regulated and have engineering structures in place. Hence, *I* might not know exactly what's going on inside, but I am fully aware of the rules and guidelines (and QA processes) being used to ensure proper behaviour. That's about the level to which I become willfully ignorant -- by knowing what I'm ignorant of and what I'm trusting to others to regulate for me.
I don't entrust my data to cellphone towers; they're pretty weak, are used for tracking and data gathering purposes. I pretty much assume that any time I call a cell phone (or land line for that matter) that anything I say is quite possibly being recorded, and behave appropriately (which isn't to say I don't use them, just that I do so with full understanding that I am broadcasting information, not having a personal conversation). This trend continues with your other examples. If I know what's going in to the black box, what's coming out, and am satisfied with the processes in place to validate the integrity of the box, I don't worry too much; the probability levels of something bad happening end up lower than those for me being struck by a car crossing the street.
However, my original (and my current) point is that this isn't the issue we're discussing -- when you host all your own stuff on someone else's service, the black box is no longer static. The black box is no longer in your possession. Without being able to analyse what's going on inside, you have no idea what it's really doing or who it's doing it for. You have no idea when things are being changed, or how that change process works. This is due to their being very few engineering processes for online services currently.
I like to know when I'm potentially being tracked and how; I like to know the weaknesses in my car's design so I can anticipate them. Likewise, I like to know similar information about services I use online. When this information is not available, I am unable to make intelligent decisions based upon what information IS provided. Hence my original posts.
There's a difference between willfuly ignorant consumerism and informed consumerism; I have no problems with the second. My point is that when you hit SaaS, there's an extra level of disassociation that people normally don't identify, instead putting it at the same level as the ECU in your car, the routing system for your phone/internet/etc. It's not.
Some people may not care about all this, and are fine with black box consumerism. That's fine. But I'm not in that market segment, I'm in the other one.
So you don't use a phone, drive a car, ride a bus, go on boats or airplanes, use internet banking or stock/currency trading? This is just an extremely short list of exactly the things you don't inspect the source code of but are a *lot* more relevant to your livelihood than the things you do look at.
I'm sure you didn't mean that to be a straw man, but the only items in your list that really apply are (smart)phone, internet banking, and online trading. We're talking about people entrusting others with their data. My car doesn't have GPS; my phone is not a smartphone (I've got a fully rootable tablet for that stuff). I actually have the advantage to know what's happening in my internet banking software, and I don't touch online trading (primarily because it's such a black box).
I'm talking about trusting your data to someone else's services; not "black box" as in "do I know how everything I use works, and can I build it myself in a pinch?" Really, a better comparison would be using a credit card, as that's essentially trusting your data to someone else's services --- all that usage data goes who-knows where (whether you're a consumer or a merchant).
So no, source code inspection isn't as much of an issue as source code for services inspection. You can have some level of trust for source code via certification -- but when you're not the one using the source code, you'd need certification for the implementation and operation as well, and because of the human factor, you're unlikely to get certification in either of these areas that is robus (at least in the next decade).