This kind of control is already present on all Symbian 9.x phones (e.g. Series 60 3rd ed) -in the form of "Platsec" or Platform Security. Apps have to be signed for the "capabilities" they use. The simple-to-understand capabilities can be granted by the phone user.
That's interesting. Where can we get more details? Especially, what can be decided by the user and what is decided by the phone manufacturer? I think that it's quite normal to protect the GSM stack, but would I be able to run my own calendar application (without paying for signing it)? Would I be able to send and receive TCP and UDP packets? Would I be able to run an application that is presented the number of the caller and reacts automatically?
I do not buy the virus argumentation, though. Obviously, if you cannot execute applications, you won't have a lot of viruses. But as soon as you can install anything interesting (e.g. sending packets over the network, sending emails), you can spread viruses. If you have a totally controlled (e.g. by the phone company) environment, you maybe do not have viruses, but you surely do not get the applications that you want (e.g. because they are not in the interest of the phone company, or more easily, because they are not developed in the first place).
This is extremely bad news: The iPhone is not as smart as a phone.
I am currently looking for a good smart phone, but Palm recently sold its soul and delivers the Treo with Windows OS. I thought that the iPhone with OS X would be a great alternative, but seems that Apple is going the Microsoft approach (all closed)...
So, what's a good and somehow open (I don't need to be able to replace the network stack, but want to be able to run my applications) smart phone these days? The requirements: GSM, UMTS (desired), Wifi, Bluetooth, USB (if possible), less than 150g weight, available in Europe.
This is one thing the DMCA got right, without such a protection of service providers, it would be impossible to run a site like/. where anyone can upload copyrighted material.
But there are clear differences: Count the amount of material copyrighted by others than the poster on slashdot and compare this with the amount of material copyrighted by others than the poster on YouTube. Make the same for percentages.
Basically, you are saying that the DMCA allows hosting huge amounts of material from unknown sources until the copyright owners complain, while if you do this on a P2P network your are guilty at once. While this might be true (legally), I doubt that this was intended. And, I think Google doubts it as well; why should they put M200$ to the side otherwise?
If Cuban is successful in getting a judge to rule that takedown is no longer good enough to prevent a site being sued for copyright infringement, how long do you think it'll be before no site allows anything to be uploaded, as they can no longer afford the resources to work out if it's copyright or not, and can't afford the legal fees for even a few infringements?
Exactly. Upload sites like YooTube, dailymotion, etc. will disappear (if Google loses).
This would be disastrous for the net. And for everyone in general, apart from those big media conglomerates who only transmit on their own content.
No, it would not. It would just be the Word Wide Web as always -- but without sites that publish videos, music etc. from unknown sources. What exactly does mankind win from sites that publish videos posted (more or less) anonymously and mostly taken from other sources (i.e. mostly never self-produced)?
This could, in one fell swoop, turn the internet from the mass of information it is now to just another broadcast mechanism for the big distribution channels (*IAA etc).
I beg to differ: It would turn the Internet from a mass of over-and-over replicated content to real user generated content. And it may turn off those content aggregator sites. It may actually encourage people to publish under their own names on their own Web sites.
I don't think that we would lose any real information. And if you need to look on all those flashy videos than you'll maybe fall for the big media industry. But then, it's because you are addicted to their contents -- not because YooTube does not deliver the fix for free anymore.
First, American education enforces plagiarism. That's right! How so? Well, take for instance the fact that almost every test in any mundane American education facility almost always encourages the student to regurgitate a canned answer from a designated source of information. It gets even worse when you enter the University level, and is unbelievably worse yet, if you enter any top tier Univeristy (where the professors themselves demand you buy *their* book).
If you study facts and principles in the university, you should learn them and it's good practice that you also study those references that describe them. In the best case: the original. That has nothing to do with plagiarism.
[lot of stuff about Hitler and Ghandi.]
This stuff about Hitler and Ghandi is complete nonsense. E.g. you can tell positive things about Hitler; however, probably nobody wants to hear it, because this is not why is is notorious. In some countries in Europe you can be prosecuted, if you deny Hitler's crimes (e.g. the Holocaust), but not by just saying that he has also done some positive things (e.g. building the Autobahn) [Disclaimer: I do not think that Hitler did one good thing; I just make the point that it is not illegal to say it.]
Also, not to mention, a fact does not have a poetic license!
Correct. And you completely confuse plagiarism with copyright or other laws. You are not allowed to copy verbatim without proper attribution to the sources. That's all. You should have learned that in school (and not plagiarism...).
Well, I asked actually for examples that include Intellectual Property. So, the examples given are just saying that a reward scheme increases productivity (and the US Welfare example is probably a not that good example), but they do not relate to Intellectual Property and definitely they do not show that DRM establishes such a reward system for the content producers.
At risk of being labeled a heretic, I'm (in concept) pro-DRM. The #1 export of the United States is Intellectual Property. A primary tenet of capitalist dogma is that if we don't have a way to protect and profit off of it, there will be less of an incentive to create it, thus less will be created and it will be of a lower quality. It's not just theory, it actually happens. Look at any large scale industry privatization over the last 30 years.
Could you come up with some examples? This might be very interesting, but I can't see them (over the last 30 years).
When my article was accepted around one year ago, the published version was absolutely different from the original - just the topic stayed the same (but not even the title).
I thought that maybe the "accepted" tag just means that the topic will be covered by an article; maybe several articles about the same topic have been accepted around the same time and then the best (?) has been chosen.
But, it would be great to shed some light on the accept/publish Slasdot cycle.
Just because you have accepted (did you actually? did you have a choice?) the EULA, does not mean that everything what is written in the EULA becomes a valid and legal contract. It is highly controversial whether EULAs are actually enforceable.
Absolute agreement. This is not a review -- it's (bad) marketing. The worst: You see the worthlessness on the very first view. Who was the editor and why could this get published?
Alle responses of the parent poster are correct. It is true that IP Multicast routing causes RAM problems when allowed globally.
However, two more issues need to be solved before ISPs will allow IP Multicast from other sources than their own:
1) Billing: Live media streams in Multicast can take considerable ressources in the ISPs network. Who should be billed: The sender or the receivers? And how (it must be much cheaper than the equivalent number of unicast streams, but how much)?
2) Jamming: While security is a whole subject for itself in Multicast, the biggest problem is jamming: Everybody can easily jam a multicast session by sending on the same multicast address. This must be solved before IP Multicast makes any sense in a commerical world. [In today's closed IPTV environments this is solved by only routing IP Multicast streams in one direction and from known (own) sources; in an open environment where everybody can be a sender, this is no longer an option.]
You are right: SMTP is the wrong protocol to send huge attachments. However, people are using it. And worse, business people (e.g. marketing guys) depend on its ability to send large files (e.g. Powerpoint presentations, large PDFs, etc.).
There are basically two solutions for this problem: Either restrict your users to send only mails with a limited size, or to install an intelligent SMTP server (e.g. Mailonator) that will automatically replace the attachments with URLs to a Web server, where the attachments are stored.
The article describes one attack method known as dictonary attacks on SSH ports of *nix systems. This attack method is known by ALL system administrators -- since years. It is even known to newbies that happen to read the manual.
So, nothing new here. And it is definitely not an article that goes "into depth on how to monitor these attackes and to report them to the authorities" and it also does not discuss various tools, but simply name some.
All five articles from Einstein (and many more important articles since 1799) have been published in the Annalen der Physik, the leading scientific journal at that time.
Thanks to the French digital national library Gallica, you can now access ALL (or nearly all) pages of the Annalen der Physik:
on-line and from 1799 - 1930.
Obviously: to understand this publication, it helps a lot to read German, the former lingua franca of the science.
I'm not complaining, mind you. I'm a professional writer, and the worse the general population can write, the more employable I become...
Plain wrong. The worse the general population can write, the less they can read, too. Very soon, your sentences will have 5 words max. And afterward you should book a course in iconography...
In fact, Microsoft's Norwegian division did such a good job at dragging money out of the Government, that its CEO got promoted to be the CEO of Microsoft Russia!
It's an excellent article, except that it always calls the Google founders "boys" - actually they are probably the mosty clever and smart founders since long.
It's interesting to read that even those smart founders had to accept an external CEO - pushed in by anxious venture capitalists. Nevertheless, it's good to see that they managed to stay in control; what is expressed as "pet CEO" in the article.
Personally, I think that firms that are lead by a small group are mostly always better managed than those who have an UberCEO. Wish that Google stays that way.
And, most of all, I wish that venture capitalists will accept that founders need to stay in control - not necessarily in the daily operations (CEO), but at least in the kind of decision group such as at Google. Unfortunately, I am not too confident about this.
It's a high level report, summing up the science.
About proof of raising temperature related to industrial activity, check out this page (look at the figures if you're too lazy to read).
You're right. The announced catastrophe will be far from now (say: more than 50 years from now). But, in order to prevent the crash you need start braking now (within the next 10 years) - otherwise it's too late.
Slashdot Mirror
Just showing that the NYT author and the slashdot submitter would better engaged the brain before writing ...
This kind of control is already present on all Symbian 9.x phones (e.g. Series 60 3rd ed) -in the form of "Platsec" or Platform Security. Apps have to be signed for the "capabilities" they use. The simple-to-understand capabilities can be granted by the phone user.
That's interesting. Where can we get more details? Especially, what can be decided by the user and what is decided by the phone manufacturer? I think that it's quite normal to protect the GSM stack, but would I be able to run my own calendar application (without paying for signing it)? Would I be able to send and receive TCP and UDP packets? Would I be able to run an application that is presented the number of the caller and reacts automatically?
I do not buy the virus argumentation, though. Obviously, if you cannot execute applications, you won't have a lot of viruses. But as soon as you can install anything interesting (e.g. sending packets over the network, sending emails), you can spread viruses. If you have a totally controlled (e.g. by the phone company) environment, you maybe do not have viruses, but you surely do not get the applications that you want (e.g. because they are not in the interest of the phone company, or more easily, because they are not developed in the first place).
This is extremely bad news: The iPhone is not as smart as a phone.
...
I am currently looking for a good smart phone, but Palm recently sold its soul and delivers the Treo with Windows OS. I thought that the iPhone with OS X would be a great alternative, but seems that Apple is going the Microsoft approach (all closed)
So, what's a good and somehow open (I don't need to be able to replace the network stack, but want to be able to run my applications) smart phone these days? The requirements: GSM, UMTS (desired), Wifi, Bluetooth, USB (if possible), less than 150g weight, available in Europe.
If they're so worried about having the encryption on the DVD broken, why don't they use stronger encryption?
Because the millions of existing DVD players wouldn't be able to play the stronger encrypted DVDs?
This is one thing the DMCA got right, without such a protection of service providers, it would be impossible to run a site like /. where anyone can upload copyrighted material.
But there are clear differences: Count the amount of material copyrighted by others than the poster on slashdot and compare this with the amount of material copyrighted by others than the poster on YouTube. Make the same for percentages.
Basically, you are saying that the DMCA allows hosting huge amounts of material from unknown sources until the copyright owners complain, while if you do this on a P2P network your are guilty at once. While this might be true (legally), I doubt that this was intended. And, I think Google doubts it as well; why should they put M200$ to the side otherwise?
If Cuban is successful in getting a judge to rule that takedown is no longer good enough to prevent a site being sued for copyright infringement, how long do you think it'll be before no site allows anything to be uploaded, as they can no longer afford the resources to work out if it's copyright or not, and can't afford the legal fees for even a few infringements?
Exactly. Upload sites like YooTube, dailymotion, etc. will disappear (if Google loses).
This would be disastrous for the net. And for everyone in general, apart from those big media conglomerates who only transmit on their own content.
No, it would not. It would just be the Word Wide Web as always -- but without sites that publish videos, music etc. from unknown sources. What exactly does mankind win from sites that publish videos posted (more or less) anonymously and mostly taken from other sources (i.e. mostly never self-produced)?
This could, in one fell swoop, turn the internet from the mass of information it is now to just another broadcast mechanism for the big distribution channels (*IAA etc).
I beg to differ: It would turn the Internet from a mass of over-and-over replicated content to real user generated content. And it may turn off those content aggregator sites. It may actually encourage people to publish under their own names on their own Web sites.
I don't think that we would lose any real information. And if you need to look on all those flashy videos than you'll maybe fall for the big media industry. But then, it's because you are addicted to their contents -- not because YooTube does not deliver the fix for free anymore.
First, American education enforces plagiarism. That's right! How so? Well, take for instance the fact that almost every test in any mundane American education facility almost always encourages the student to regurgitate a canned answer from a designated source of information. It gets even worse when you enter the University level, and is unbelievably worse yet, if you enter any top tier Univeristy (where the professors themselves demand you buy *their* book).
If you study facts and principles in the university, you should learn them and it's good practice that you also study those references that describe them. In the best case: the original. That has nothing to do with plagiarism.
[lot of stuff about Hitler and Ghandi.]
This stuff about Hitler and Ghandi is complete nonsense. E.g. you can tell positive things about Hitler; however, probably nobody wants to hear it, because this is not why is is notorious. In some countries in Europe you can be prosecuted, if you deny Hitler's crimes (e.g. the Holocaust), but not by just saying that he has also done some positive things (e.g. building the Autobahn) [Disclaimer: I do not think that Hitler did one good thing; I just make the point that it is not illegal to say it.]
Also, not to mention, a fact does not have a poetic license!
Correct. And you completely confuse plagiarism with copyright or other laws. You are not allowed to copy verbatim without proper attribution to the sources. That's all. You should have learned that in school (and not plagiarism...).
Well, I asked actually for examples that include Intellectual Property. So, the examples given are just saying that a reward scheme increases productivity (and the US Welfare example is probably a not that good example), but they do not relate to Intellectual Property and definitely they do not show that DRM establishes such a reward system for the content producers.
At risk of being labeled a heretic, I'm (in concept) pro-DRM. The #1 export of the United States is Intellectual Property. A primary tenet of capitalist dogma is that if we don't have a way to protect and profit off of it, there will be less of an incentive to create it, thus less will be created and it will be of a lower quality. It's not just theory, it actually happens. Look at any large scale industry privatization over the last 30 years.
Could you come up with some examples? This might be very interesting, but I can't see them (over the last 30 years).
When my article was accepted around one year ago, the published version was absolutely different from the original - just the topic stayed the same (but not even the title).
I thought that maybe the "accepted" tag just means that the topic will be covered by an article; maybe several articles about the same topic have been accepted around the same time and then the best (?) has been chosen.
But, it would be great to shed some light on the accept/publish Slasdot cycle.
Just because you have accepted (did you actually? did you have a choice?) the EULA, does not mean that everything what is written in the EULA becomes a valid and legal contract. It is highly controversial whether EULAs are actually enforceable.
Check out EFF's critical summary about EULAs:
http://www.eff.org/wp/eula.php
Absolute agreement. This is not a review -- it's (bad) marketing. The worst: You see the worthlessness on the very first view. Who was the editor and why could this get published?
Alle responses of the parent poster are correct. It is true that IP Multicast routing causes RAM problems when allowed globally.
However, two more issues need to be solved before ISPs will allow IP Multicast from other sources than their own:
1) Billing: Live media streams in Multicast can take considerable ressources in the ISPs network. Who should be billed: The sender or the receivers? And how (it must be much cheaper than the equivalent number of unicast streams, but how much)?
2) Jamming: While security is a whole subject for itself in Multicast, the biggest problem is jamming: Everybody can easily jam a multicast session by sending on the same multicast address. This must be solved before IP Multicast makes any sense in a commerical world. [In today's closed IPTV environments this is solved by only routing IP Multicast streams in one direction and from known (own) sources; in an open environment where everybody can be a sender, this is no longer an option.]
You are right: SMTP is the wrong protocol to send huge attachments. However, people are using it. And worse, business people (e.g. marketing guys) depend on its ability to send large files (e.g. Powerpoint presentations, large PDFs, etc.).
There are basically two solutions for this problem: Either restrict your users to send only mails with a limited size, or to install an intelligent SMTP server (e.g. Mailonator) that will automatically replace the attachments with URLs to a Web server, where the attachments are stored.
Baidu lost first round of copyright dispute after one day of trial in the first instance. Baidu say that they will appeal.
The article describes one attack method known as dictonary attacks on SSH ports of *nix systems. This attack method is known by ALL system administrators -- since years. It is even known to newbies that happen to read the manual.
So, nothing new here. And it is definitely not an article that goes "into depth on how to monitor these attackes and to report them to the authorities" and it also does not discuss various tools, but simply name some.
So, just a superfluous posting...
All five articles from Einstein (and many more important articles since 1799) have been published in the Annalen der Physik, the leading scientific journal at that time.
Thanks to the French digital national library Gallica, you can now access ALL (or nearly all) pages of the Annalen der Physik: on-line and from 1799 - 1930.
Obviously: to understand this publication, it helps a lot to read German, the former lingua franca of the science.
I'm not complaining, mind you. I'm a professional writer, and the worse the general population can write, the more employable I become...
Plain wrong. The worse the general population can write, the less they can read, too. Very soon, your sentences will have 5 words max. And afterward you should book a course in iconography...
In fact, Microsoft's Norwegian division did such a good job at dragging money out of the Government, that its CEO got promoted to be the CEO of Microsoft Russia!
Not sure, if I would call that a promotion ...
It's an excellent article, except that it always calls the Google founders "boys" - actually they are probably the mosty clever and smart founders since long.
It's interesting to read that even those smart founders had to accept an external CEO - pushed in by anxious venture capitalists. Nevertheless, it's good to see that they managed to stay in control; what is expressed as "pet CEO" in the article.
Personally, I think that firms that are lead by a small group are mostly always better managed than those who have an UberCEO. Wish that Google stays that way.
And, most of all, I wish that venture capitalists will accept that founders need to stay in control - not necessarily in the daily operations (CEO), but at least in the kind of decision group such as at Google. Unfortunately, I am not too confident about this.
So by your logic, someone who is skeptical of this is by your definition not intelligent?
At least ignorant. How much more evidence do you need, before you believe that global warming does exist? And that it will have consequences?
I bet you answer is: I don't believe it until I feel it. Do you call this intelligent?
It's a high level report, summing up the science. About proof of raising temperature related to industrial activity, check out this page (look at the figures if you're too lazy to read).
Excellent post. Chapeau!
Catastrophe is not imminent.
You're right. The announced catastrophe will be far from now (say: more than 50 years from now). But, in order to prevent the crash you need start braking now (within the next 10 years) - otherwise it's too late.
About glaciers: Still a possibility as an effect of global warming. If the Gulf Stream ceases, that means cold weather in the nordic hemisphere.
So: No junk then.
And I do not see the junk now.