The difference is that idiots who did that in the past did it because they were technically ignorant and did so because they were trying to shoehorn people onto a known platform that they knew their stuff would work on. Now that the standards are established so that real technical limitations of the past are irrelevant, I don't know of any site that does that.
Now, instead, it will be not because of any technical reason their stuff will or won't work; they'll be doing it because of licensing deals and exclusive contracts. It's purely an administrative decision based on revenue.
Dammit, my mod points expired yesterday. That's actually quite a good idea. I hate corporate pissing matches, but the fact is that I suspect that these network need Google a hell of a lot more than Google needs these networks.
You say that facetiously, like it's not a big deal, but as the article points out, how long before this spreads to differentiating between what browser you're using?
I can easily imagine a scenario where a company like Hulu might start making exclusive distribution deals with someone like Microsoft. If you're not using Internet Explorer, you'll get a message that says something like, "We're sorry, but this program is only available to users using Internet Explorer 10. Click here to download the latest version..." Sure, you can edit the User Agent string, but most people won't bother. Users using Linux, Macs, etc. can outright be blocked based on the Adobe ID just as GoogleTV users are being blocked now from the shows as the article points out.
I agree with the the article. Some new legal framework needs to be set up so that discrimination based on platform like this is not legal. I know that it sounds harsh, but as long as it's legal and companies are willing and able to extort other companies for lucrative exclusive contracts, this is going to be extremely ugly.
Good. Don't justify their fears by acting like a thug.
That's two and a half years. Yes, he deserves to be punished, but it strikes me that he's not the one acting like a thug here, and I don't give a damn whether he's a rabid lefty, righty, or indy. If I heard that someone had gotten two and half years for taking down Reid'a, Pelosi's, and Michael Moore's sites, I still boggle in disbelief that someone got two and a half years.
That's seriously warped. Yes, what he did was wrong, but it's not like he permanently shut down the Internet.
30 months? Two and a half years? Damn, he should have just raped someone instead, he probably would have gotten less time and had a lot more fun in the process. I swear, I'm going to start voting against any politician that runs on being "tough on crime." It seems plenty tough enough as it is.
Two and a half years of someone's life, that's the price we demand now for some minor inconvenience? Damn, if I were his lawyer, I'd be tempted to appeal that for violation of the Eighth Amendment.
I think you may have gotten me confused with the AC to whom you replied. I'm the guy who is the GP to your post, the AC is the guy who misread my post. Can we just nuke this comment tree and start over? I'm starting to get myself confused with me and I.;)
Actually, I noticed after I posted that there was a weird mix of sarcasm and seriousness, and I thought, "You know, some people are going to interpret that wrong." If I could take it back, I would have worded it a bit differently to make what I was saying consistently clear.
Oh well, it wasn't really meant to be an editorial masterpiece, it was just a couple of random thoughts trying to convey that saying that people shouldn't try to improve themselves is kind of an overly broad statement, that sometimes there really are no long-term negative effects from doing so, and sometimes there are negative effects, but they are worth the price of whatever improvement you are undergoing, be it natural, chemical, or surgical.
Crud, then, because I and a LOT of my friends have had LASIK surgery to correct my vision. It turns out god gave me bum eyes that focused everything slightly in front of my retina, and that fixed it pretty well with minimal, if any, long-term trade-off.
My dad had high blood pressure. In spite of efforts to control it through diet and exercise, he foolishly took drugs to control it, thinking that he could improve upon his natural system to regulate it. He died a few years ago of bladder cancer. I'm not sure how exactly that was a long-term tradeoff since the doctors told us they were completely unrelated, but he seemed not to mind the short-term benefit of living a reasonably long time.
Also, where exactly do we draw the line? I mean, some people run 10 miles or more a day; surely that can't be normal and can be considered a measure to "improve on what you have," and statistically, those people tend to live longer. Do we consider eating certain foods that contain substances shown medically to lead to longer and more healthy lives, or for that matter, avoiding natural foods that contain substances shown medically to be harmful (fat, cholesterol, etc.) to be trying to improve on what we have? Before long, we'll be living in a world where technologies such as gene therapy could prevent or significantly reduce conditions like Down's Syndrome, diabetes, Alzheimer's, etc. Should we avoid those as well?
I suspect that this study is the first in a long line of research that may lead to exciting new therapies for people who might not be able to learn normally. And yes, if it's shown effective without significant side effects, it might be used much as LASIK is today, a method of improve on what we were given with little to no risk. Personally, I don't see much wrong with that. If you disagree, that's certainly your right, but I would ask that you not judge others, try to impinge on the freedom of others to make informed decisions regarding their own body, or worst of all, try to keep the research from happening that could potentially improve the lives of many people who are not able to function normally in society due to preventable or even curable disabilities.
There is actually precedent that has determined that recipes--at least, lists of ingredients and/or instructions for preparing them--are not copyrightable. Point of interest, but jokes are not copyrightable also. (Though a specific performance of those jokes can be.)
Sorry if I went overboard, it's just that one of my pet peeves is that so many people think, "I'm not smart enough to get all of this techno-computer stuff," and there are a lot of socially challenged people out there who revel in that. They give geeks a bad name.
There are things that bear correction. For example, to me, when people mix up "free as in beer" versus "free as in speech," I take the time to explain the difference, because in my opinion, that mix-up causes people to do things that are not in their best interest because they don't know better. The problem is that if we geeks inundate people with too much irrelevant information, average people can't really tell the difference between what what really matters and what is just mildly interesting.
You're post came off a bit as, "Look at me, I'm smart!" and it did rub me the wrong way. I don't know you, though, so I don't know if you're really like that or just something struck a nerve with you that particular minute of that particular day; that happens, too.
Slashdot to me is a bit of both. There are highly technical/scientific things posted, and there are things that appeal to your slightly-geek-side-of-average layperson. This one struck me as aimed at the latter. I didn't mean my post to come off like the inquisition, though in hindsight I guess it really does. I just mainly meant: please don't do that. People get confused enough about this stuff already, and the article was just attempting to "dumb down" the concept enough so that average people will get it.
I'm glad to see the standard of technical journalism around here is as high as ever...
The standard of any kind of journalism is explaining things in a manner in which your audience will understand it. Laypeople--and in the technical community that is Slashdot, I am referring to geeks who don't necessarily know or care about all of the technical intricacies of video codecs--see the headline and think, "Oh, a way for me to watch video I couldn't before on my iPhone!" Bingo.
Most people like myself probably thought, "technically, that's not what it's doing; it's probably transcoding something written in Adobe's proprietary Flash format into something that only uses standards in the provisional specification of HTML 5, likely by extracting the H.264 video and re-wrapping it into HTML 5 standard-compliant tags." Most of those people probably also thought, "...but I know what they mean. It's a way for people to watch video they couldn't before on their iPhones." Again, bingo.
Now, I'm really sorry if you were so confused, thinking that the line was being literal and expecting there to be some kind of, I don't know, web alchemy at work, but I assure you that you were in an extreme sliver of a minority. Most people "got it," and as such, I think it passes muster as far as technical journalism goes. If it really bothers you that much, how about considering reading the f****** article, looking for technical details and/or references that you can research yourself?
Incidentally, the submitter pulled that description directly from the article, which appears in International Business Times, not exactly a bastion of "technical journalism." If you want to whine about technicalia, how about writing to the editor there instead of here? Let me guess, is it because you're too busy explaining somewhere else that since there's no modulation/demodulation over digital channels, everyone should stop calling those boxes you plug the coax into "cable modems?" Or are you too bothered by people calling 2010 the start of a new decade instead of the end of an old one? Or how about those idiots who talk about the "dark side of the moon," the side that receives just as much light as the other side? Do you make such a fuss when someone comments on how hot the "middle of summer" is, when in reality, average temperatures are highest around the solstice, which is the beginning of summer?
Oh, right, I know why. Because here, you get modded +5 Informative, whereas in normal society, you'd just get called out as the tool you are. Now if you'll excuse me, I have to go to the bank to get some money out of the ATM machine using my PIN number.
See what I mean about arguing with "government is evil" pricks? Pointless. No matter what I say, you've already zealously started with a false premise, and nothing anyone says will change your mind.
I do indeed think that our pre-college education system works very well. It has--and continues to--turn out some of the most brilliant minds that the world has ever known. But because it's not perfect, in your demented little world, it's "an utter disaster." Yes, there's definitely idiocy going on, but it's not on my part.
Personally, I've had experience with both public and private school. Both had upsides and downsides. In the end, I chose to leave the private school I was attending because I realized the simple notion that which school you attend has little to do with success and happiness in life. It mostly depends on how well your parents train you for dealing with the real world, and how much you take personal responsibility for your own education, both book-wise and common sense-wise.
I can't speak to the former in your case because I don't know you, but based on your posts, I can definitely speak to the latter. You have very little common sense.
So tell me, in your educational utopia, what happens after we've dismantled the public education system? I can tell you, because we've been there. You pretty much took over whatever job your parents were doing because there was little to no opportunity to do anything else. Only the rich people could afford to send their kids to school or pay for private tutors. Will you be the one to explain to poor people how in this land of so-called "opportunity," you're looking to take away the one great opportunity equalizer among different social classes we have away from them?
"I'm sorry, Timmy. You used to be able to learn calculus in high school for free so that you could become the engineer you wanted to be. But in 2010, Grishnakh declared that the government was evil, your parents who work at the local 7-11 can't even teach you basic math, let alone calculus, and of course your family is too poor to pay for you to have a private tutor. Oh well, c'est la vie! Oops, sorry, I forgot that you've never learned French, either. That means, 'That's life.' Oh, no, I didn't mean that no one can be an engineer, that privilege is reserved only for kids of families of means. C'est ta vie--that's your life!"
Yes, we tried it that way, and it didn't work very well. Thus, we tried it another way, and we became one of the most well-educated and universally-educated countries on the planet in a very short time. Now because of some irrational hatred or paranoia, you want to tear it all down. The result is predictable, because again, we've been there: most kids will not get an education, and the general level of intelligence of the population as a whole will dramatically go down. If you think this is a good thing, you're either so rich that it wouldn't matter to you or you're so stupid for listening to rich people pushing that agenda that you don't know better. Either way, you clearly do not have the best interest of our country at heart, and thus your opinion holds no weight to me.
Only idiots buy into the whole "government is evil" pablum that is being foisted by and upon people like you. Only a total tool actually tries to tear down an institution that has provided immeasurable opportunity to countless people.
Tell you what, if government is so evil, how about putting your damned money where your mouth is? Stop driving on those cushy government-provided roads and interstates. Go mix some arsenic in your water and take some drags off your tailpipe, since the government is what sets environmental standards for how clean our water and air must be. If your house catches on fire, don't bother calling that socialist bastion of evil fire department. Let me know where you live so I can come rob you, secure in knowing that you'd never dream of calling those evil police on me. Mix some poison i
I hate to tell you this, but your core premises are wrong. Continuing to argue with you would be like trying to convince a creationist that evolution is correct; you're so whacked that it won't do any good.
The real shame of it is that it's people like you who are doing real damage to the country, always criticizing with no productive ideas, trying to tear down the very institutions that DO work well and that made it great.
A user who uses resources (bandwidth) without providing income (ad/payment) may be one they don't really care about losing.
If I have an ad-paid site, I wouldn't mind ad-blockers visiting. The theory is that if they enjoy the site, it's likely they'll spread the news to people who don't block ads. They tell people, link to it on their blogs and Facebook, etc. Thus even the people who don't make me more money directly would be making me more money indirectly. Bandwidth is cheap compared to the cost of word-of-mouth advertising.
It's kind of the same principle of how as file-sharing goes up, so does music industry revenues. Yes, file-sharer "lose" money for the industry when they don't pay for music. They also drive the industry by providing "buzz" and testimonial to what they listen to to their friends.
Okay, I read a bit of it, and I've got to say that this is one of the most insanely stupid pieces of tripe I think I've ever read.
Universal education is one of the cornerstones of an advanced society, and responsible for untold inventiveness and ingenuity. Without it, we'd be doubtlessly stuck a hundred years or more in the past, because most of the great thinkers of our time would have been too busy tending the farms to have become accomplished.
I'm going to go out on a limb here... You're one of these "government is evil" schmucks, aren't you? It all sounds good, unless you happen to be one of the poor saps who gets left behind in the dust because your parents are stupidly suspicious of all of those people with that fancy schmancy learnin'.
What they meant is that most CMSes store the password in the database as an MD5 (or some other algorithm) hash. The technique he's describing is to hash the password client-side and send the MD5 over the wire to the server, which can then compare it to what's stored in the database to grant access.
Still, while better than nothing, there are a few problems with this, including:
Using MD5 or any other algorithm is susceptible to so-called "rainbow table" attacks. For example, if I see 5f4dcc3b5aa765d61d8327deb882cf99 floating across the wire, I know the user's password without any fancy decryption techniques. There are rainbow tables for just about every algorithm out there. This can be thwarted by adding a password "salt."
It depends on the user having javascript enabled. While most browsers do, some people (like me) use things like FlashBlock to avoid annoyances and sundry evil.
As mentioned above, it does little to counter replay attacks, where someone who has sniffed the MD5 hash off the wire simply sends it to the server and impersonates the user. To mitigate that, you could in theory use some time-based salt, like the UTC epoch timestamp or a one-off seed sent from the server.
While there are ways around it, really, the simplest thing to do is simply use SSL for secure connections. Truth is, the smartest thing to do is use combinations of all of the above, because even SSL isn't guaranteed to be secure if you don't have absolute control over the hardware you are browsing on.
I'm sorry, but your part in deciding the social mores of the society in which you live is actually quite minuscule. Maybe if you were actually gay, your opinion might have a little more weight, but given that 1) most gay people are offended by that use of the word and 2) you are trying to redefine it based on your own ignorant prejudices, I'm guessing you're not. (Incidentally, that's probably why you are not offended and why you think there's nothing wrong with using the word in that manner.)
My grandmother, who grew up in the deep South, referred to all black people as n-----s. It was actually quite embarrassing to the whole family, because she would sometimes even do it in open public. If someone asked her not to or pointed out that it was offensive, she would quickly get defensive about it, explaining that it wasn't said in a mean or derogatory way, "that's just what they were always called" when she was growing up, and she wasn't about to change just because someone else now gets offended by it. And many times, she was being honest, the word wasn't said with any particular malice.
That doesn't change the fact that she was still wrong. Because of the historical context of the word and the baggage that goes along with it, it is patently offensive in today's society.
A century ago, "gay" meant lively or colorful. Eventually, it came to be applied to mean homosexual, presumably because the lifestyle in which homosexuals were engaged was perceived as stereotypically lively and definitely colorful. However, as the word became more and more associated with homosexuality, it took on the same prejudice against homosexuality that has plagued the community for decades: it came to mean inferior, "sissy," and eventually, stupid. Of course, I'm guessing you know all of this already and I'm just pointing out the obvious, but your use of the word derives its roots directly from its derogatory and prejudicial use in describing homosexuals.
And that means that no matter how much you rationalize your use of it, and no matter how much you try to pretend like the way in which you used it is completely acceptable, you're wrong, too.
Maybe it's not a big deal to you. You might think that because I'm heterosexual, it shouldn't be a big deal to me. But when I see a class of normal, ordinary people stigmatized and persecuted and kids literally killing themselves because of anti-gay social pressures, it makes me sick and I won't just stand by and watch. So next time you're tempted to use "gay" in a derogatory manner, grow up or make sure that I'm not in earshot, lest I have to call out your idiocy in public in front of your family and friends.
Way back when, I used to have a Scientific Atlanta box that would show me a 12 channel by 2 hour grid. When they forced me onto a Motorola box, I got a seven channel by 30 minute grid, plus shitty advertisements plastered over around 1/3 of the screen real estate. NOT cool.
Personally, I think that if a cable company is going to force ads upon you with their program guide, they should deduct a bit off your bill, since it's being subsidized. Or better yet, just don't show me damn ads on my program guide, since I'm paying you for your service already. Of course, that philosophy doesn't mesh too well with the "We're going to milk every cent out of every revenue stream possible, no matter how much it pisses off our customers" philosophy of the cable companies.
If I described IBM to someone, I wouldn't call it an "electronics" company. I mean, sure, they dabble in electronics, but if I were describing it, I would call it a "computer" company or a "technology" company.
When I think of companies that are "electronics" companies, i.e. that's what they're primarily known for, I think of either hardware manufacturing companies such as Intel (as someone else mentioned here) or "consumer electronics" companies such as Sony, which is where my money is, and which was modded as "Troll" below because, I'm guessing, some fanboy got mod points.
So why do you think it's so obvious that the "electronics" company is IBM?
"To the contrary, we already list many titles that were initially or solely distributed online and/or via BitTorrent," Emily Glassman wrote in an email from Seattle, where the company is based.
"As a pioneering internet company - we are celebrating our 20th anniversary on 17 October! - we are fully aware of and totally embrace digital distribution."
Glassman cited a range of recent titles, including 2009 films The Yes Men Fix the World and Blank, and 2008 films Pentagon and Emperor, that have been distributed through BitTorrent and listed on IMDb.
"We will look at and review this specific case but as a general rule we always include all films that are submitted to us as long as we can verify that they fulfil our eligibility requirements."
Glassman said the database's requirements were stringent because it had to maintain its credibility, and that "more substantial burden of proof is required to accept titles that are still in production".
They probably get hundreds (or more) of requests to list all kinds of screwy things every day, and this probably just flew under the radar of people who didn't take the time to do the due diligence of verifying that it's a real project that's well underway and that actually does have a good chance of being released and relevant. I suspect that with all of the attention, they'll probably change their mind in pretty short order and all will be well again. I find both the filmmaker's frustration and IMDB's reticence understandable. It is a valuable resource, and I don't want it trashed with every schmo who thinks that his kid's birthday party video should be listed.
Besides, as mentioned before, the publicity doesn't hurt, and IMDB did them a huge favor in an indirect way. I had never heard of the project before, but I think it's an awesome idea, one I've actually thought of and wished on many occasions that someone would take up. I hope they do awesome, and their project has motivated me to pitch in and buy some frames.
...such a large population of America's youth enjoys getting their political news in the form of slap stick humor. In contrast, the older generations (especially WWII) were engaged in current events on a more serious medium. I wonder if the difference in news content vs. how the generations received their news as young adults represents how America has been dumbed down.
I'm sorry, are you under the impression that this is new? There's a fine tradition of it, in fact. Ever watch Weekend Update on SNL? It's been around since 1975. Ever listened to Bill Mahar? George Carlin? Going back a while, how about Roger Waters? John Lennon? Bob Dylan? Keep going back, and you'll find Bob Hope and Bette Davis pitching war bonds and AWESOME political cartoonists developing a new art form with sometimes scathing brilliance to convey news and opinion to the masses. Go back before the days of television and mass entertainment. Ever heard of Mark Twain? Jonathan Swift?
Keep going back even further, and you'll find the likes of Charles Dickens, William Shakespeare, and even further, ancient Greek playwrights working to disseminate political information and present what is going on in the world in interesting, entertaining ways.
Entertainers have been informing us formally or informally, and trying to move people to act politically since, well, forever. If you think it's scary today, man, I feel sorry for what you'll think it's like in years ahead as new forms of news and entertainment, and even the literal physical media on which it is delivered, changes. It sounds to me like you're just experiencing a generation gap. Don't worry, it will all be okay, and kids these days won't ruin the world any more than you did.
Slashdot Mirror
The difference is that idiots who did that in the past did it because they were technically ignorant and did so because they were trying to shoehorn people onto a known platform that they knew their stuff would work on. Now that the standards are established so that real technical limitations of the past are irrelevant, I don't know of any site that does that.
Now, instead, it will be not because of any technical reason their stuff will or won't work; they'll be doing it because of licensing deals and exclusive contracts. It's purely an administrative decision based on revenue.
Dammit, my mod points expired yesterday. That's actually quite a good idea. I hate corporate pissing matches, but the fact is that I suspect that these network need Google a hell of a lot more than Google needs these networks.
You say that facetiously, like it's not a big deal, but as the article points out, how long before this spreads to differentiating between what browser you're using?
I can easily imagine a scenario where a company like Hulu might start making exclusive distribution deals with someone like Microsoft. If you're not using Internet Explorer, you'll get a message that says something like, "We're sorry, but this program is only available to users using Internet Explorer 10. Click here to download the latest version..." Sure, you can edit the User Agent string, but most people won't bother. Users using Linux, Macs, etc. can outright be blocked based on the Adobe ID just as GoogleTV users are being blocked now from the shows as the article points out.
I agree with the the article. Some new legal framework needs to be set up so that discrimination based on platform like this is not legal. I know that it sounds harsh, but as long as it's legal and companies are willing and able to extort other companies for lucrative exclusive contracts, this is going to be extremely ugly.
Good. Don't justify their fears by acting like a thug.
That's two and a half years. Yes, he deserves to be punished, but it strikes me that he's not the one acting like a thug here, and I don't give a damn whether he's a rabid lefty, righty, or indy. If I heard that someone had gotten two and half years for taking down Reid'a, Pelosi's, and Michael Moore's sites, I still boggle in disbelief that someone got two and a half years.
Seriously. Damn!
That's seriously warped. Yes, what he did was wrong, but it's not like he permanently shut down the Internet.
30 months? Two and a half years? Damn, he should have just raped someone instead, he probably would have gotten less time and had a lot more fun in the process. I swear, I'm going to start voting against any politician that runs on being "tough on crime." It seems plenty tough enough as it is.
Two and a half years of someone's life, that's the price we demand now for some minor inconvenience? Damn, if I were his lawyer, I'd be tempted to appeal that for violation of the Eighth Amendment.
I think you may have gotten me confused with the AC to whom you replied. I'm the guy who is the GP to your post, the AC is the guy who misread my post. Can we just nuke this comment tree and start over? I'm starting to get myself confused with me and I. ;)
Actually, I noticed after I posted that there was a weird mix of sarcasm and seriousness, and I thought, "You know, some people are going to interpret that wrong." If I could take it back, I would have worded it a bit differently to make what I was saying consistently clear.
Oh well, it wasn't really meant to be an editorial masterpiece, it was just a couple of random thoughts trying to convey that saying that people shouldn't try to improve themselves is kind of an overly broad statement, that sometimes there really are no long-term negative effects from doing so, and sometimes there are negative effects, but they are worth the price of whatever improvement you are undergoing, be it natural, chemical, or surgical.
Crud, then, because I and a LOT of my friends have had LASIK surgery to correct my vision. It turns out god gave me bum eyes that focused everything slightly in front of my retina, and that fixed it pretty well with minimal, if any, long-term trade-off.
My dad had high blood pressure. In spite of efforts to control it through diet and exercise, he foolishly took drugs to control it, thinking that he could improve upon his natural system to regulate it. He died a few years ago of bladder cancer. I'm not sure how exactly that was a long-term tradeoff since the doctors told us they were completely unrelated, but he seemed not to mind the short-term benefit of living a reasonably long time.
Also, where exactly do we draw the line? I mean, some people run 10 miles or more a day; surely that can't be normal and can be considered a measure to "improve on what you have," and statistically, those people tend to live longer. Do we consider eating certain foods that contain substances shown medically to lead to longer and more healthy lives, or for that matter, avoiding natural foods that contain substances shown medically to be harmful (fat, cholesterol, etc.) to be trying to improve on what we have? Before long, we'll be living in a world where technologies such as gene therapy could prevent or significantly reduce conditions like Down's Syndrome, diabetes, Alzheimer's, etc. Should we avoid those as well?
I suspect that this study is the first in a long line of research that may lead to exciting new therapies for people who might not be able to learn normally. And yes, if it's shown effective without significant side effects, it might be used much as LASIK is today, a method of improve on what we were given with little to no risk. Personally, I don't see much wrong with that. If you disagree, that's certainly your right, but I would ask that you not judge others, try to impinge on the freedom of others to make informed decisions regarding their own body, or worst of all, try to keep the research from happening that could potentially improve the lives of many people who are not able to function normally in society due to preventable or even curable disabilities.
Just some food for thought.
You get a Blue Scream of Death.
There is actually precedent that has determined that recipes--at least, lists of ingredients and/or instructions for preparing them--are not copyrightable. Point of interest, but jokes are not copyrightable also. (Though a specific performance of those jokes can be.)
Reference
VERY interesting talk about making money in industries that are exempt from copyright, specifically the fashion industry.
Sorry if I went overboard, it's just that one of my pet peeves is that so many people think, "I'm not smart enough to get all of this techno-computer stuff," and there are a lot of socially challenged people out there who revel in that. They give geeks a bad name.
There are things that bear correction. For example, to me, when people mix up "free as in beer" versus "free as in speech," I take the time to explain the difference, because in my opinion, that mix-up causes people to do things that are not in their best interest because they don't know better. The problem is that if we geeks inundate people with too much irrelevant information, average people can't really tell the difference between what what really matters and what is just mildly interesting.
You're post came off a bit as, "Look at me, I'm smart!" and it did rub me the wrong way. I don't know you, though, so I don't know if you're really like that or just something struck a nerve with you that particular minute of that particular day; that happens, too.
Slashdot to me is a bit of both. There are highly technical/scientific things posted, and there are things that appeal to your slightly-geek-side-of-average layperson. This one struck me as aimed at the latter. I didn't mean my post to come off like the inquisition, though in hindsight I guess it really does. I just mainly meant: please don't do that. People get confused enough about this stuff already, and the article was just attempting to "dumb down" the concept enough so that average people will get it.
Well, I think we can all agree that Adam Smith was a mamby-pamby liberal socialist.
The standard of any kind of journalism is explaining things in a manner in which your audience will understand it. Laypeople--and in the technical community that is Slashdot, I am referring to geeks who don't necessarily know or care about all of the technical intricacies of video codecs--see the headline and think, "Oh, a way for me to watch video I couldn't before on my iPhone!" Bingo.
Most people like myself probably thought, "technically, that's not what it's doing; it's probably transcoding something written in Adobe's proprietary Flash format into something that only uses standards in the provisional specification of HTML 5, likely by extracting the H.264 video and re-wrapping it into HTML 5 standard-compliant tags." Most of those people probably also thought, "...but I know what they mean. It's a way for people to watch video they couldn't before on their iPhones." Again, bingo.
Now, I'm really sorry if you were so confused, thinking that the line was being literal and expecting there to be some kind of, I don't know, web alchemy at work, but I assure you that you were in an extreme sliver of a minority. Most people "got it," and as such, I think it passes muster as far as technical journalism goes. If it really bothers you that much, how about considering reading the f****** article, looking for technical details and/or references that you can research yourself?
Incidentally, the submitter pulled that description directly from the article, which appears in International Business Times, not exactly a bastion of "technical journalism." If you want to whine about technicalia, how about writing to the editor there instead of here? Let me guess, is it because you're too busy explaining somewhere else that since there's no modulation/demodulation over digital channels, everyone should stop calling those boxes you plug the coax into "cable modems?" Or are you too bothered by people calling 2010 the start of a new decade instead of the end of an old one? Or how about those idiots who talk about the "dark side of the moon," the side that receives just as much light as the other side? Do you make such a fuss when someone comments on how hot the "middle of summer" is, when in reality, average temperatures are highest around the solstice, which is the beginning of summer?
Oh, right, I know why. Because here, you get modded +5 Informative, whereas in normal society, you'd just get called out as the tool you are. Now if you'll excuse me, I have to go to the bank to get some money out of the ATM machine using my PIN number.
See what I mean about arguing with "government is evil" pricks? Pointless. No matter what I say, you've already zealously started with a false premise, and nothing anyone says will change your mind.
I do indeed think that our pre-college education system works very well. It has--and continues to--turn out some of the most brilliant minds that the world has ever known. But because it's not perfect, in your demented little world, it's "an utter disaster." Yes, there's definitely idiocy going on, but it's not on my part.
Personally, I've had experience with both public and private school. Both had upsides and downsides. In the end, I chose to leave the private school I was attending because I realized the simple notion that which school you attend has little to do with success and happiness in life. It mostly depends on how well your parents train you for dealing with the real world, and how much you take personal responsibility for your own education, both book-wise and common sense-wise.
I can't speak to the former in your case because I don't know you, but based on your posts, I can definitely speak to the latter. You have very little common sense.
So tell me, in your educational utopia, what happens after we've dismantled the public education system? I can tell you, because we've been there. You pretty much took over whatever job your parents were doing because there was little to no opportunity to do anything else. Only the rich people could afford to send their kids to school or pay for private tutors. Will you be the one to explain to poor people how in this land of so-called "opportunity," you're looking to take away the one great opportunity equalizer among different social classes we have away from them?
"I'm sorry, Timmy. You used to be able to learn calculus in high school for free so that you could become the engineer you wanted to be. But in 2010, Grishnakh declared that the government was evil, your parents who work at the local 7-11 can't even teach you basic math, let alone calculus, and of course your family is too poor to pay for you to have a private tutor. Oh well, c'est la vie! Oops, sorry, I forgot that you've never learned French, either. That means, 'That's life.' Oh, no, I didn't mean that no one can be an engineer, that privilege is reserved only for kids of families of means. C'est ta vie--that's your life!"
Yes, we tried it that way, and it didn't work very well. Thus, we tried it another way, and we became one of the most well-educated and universally-educated countries on the planet in a very short time. Now because of some irrational hatred or paranoia, you want to tear it all down. The result is predictable, because again, we've been there: most kids will not get an education, and the general level of intelligence of the population as a whole will dramatically go down. If you think this is a good thing, you're either so rich that it wouldn't matter to you or you're so stupid for listening to rich people pushing that agenda that you don't know better. Either way, you clearly do not have the best interest of our country at heart, and thus your opinion holds no weight to me.
Only idiots buy into the whole "government is evil" pablum that is being foisted by and upon people like you. Only a total tool actually tries to tear down an institution that has provided immeasurable opportunity to countless people.
Tell you what, if government is so evil, how about putting your damned money where your mouth is? Stop driving on those cushy government-provided roads and interstates. Go mix some arsenic in your water and take some drags off your tailpipe, since the government is what sets environmental standards for how clean our water and air must be. If your house catches on fire, don't bother calling that socialist bastion of evil fire department. Let me know where you live so I can come rob you, secure in knowing that you'd never dream of calling those evil police on me. Mix some poison i
I hate to tell you this, but your core premises are wrong. Continuing to argue with you would be like trying to convince a creationist that evolution is correct; you're so whacked that it won't do any good.
The real shame of it is that it's people like you who are doing real damage to the country, always criticizing with no productive ideas, trying to tear down the very institutions that DO work well and that made it great.
If I have an ad-paid site, I wouldn't mind ad-blockers visiting. The theory is that if they enjoy the site, it's likely they'll spread the news to people who don't block ads. They tell people, link to it on their blogs and Facebook, etc. Thus even the people who don't make me more money directly would be making me more money indirectly. Bandwidth is cheap compared to the cost of word-of-mouth advertising.
It's kind of the same principle of how as file-sharing goes up, so does music industry revenues. Yes, file-sharer "lose" money for the industry when they don't pay for music. They also drive the industry by providing "buzz" and testimonial to what they listen to to their friends.
Okay, I read a bit of it, and I've got to say that this is one of the most insanely stupid pieces of tripe I think I've ever read.
Universal education is one of the cornerstones of an advanced society, and responsible for untold inventiveness and ingenuity. Without it, we'd be doubtlessly stuck a hundred years or more in the past, because most of the great thinkers of our time would have been too busy tending the farms to have become accomplished.
I'm going to go out on a limb here... You're one of these "government is evil" schmucks, aren't you? It all sounds good, unless you happen to be one of the poor saps who gets left behind in the dust because your parents are stupidly suspicious of all of those people with that fancy schmancy learnin'.
The OP worded it badly
What they meant is that most CMSes store the password in the database as an MD5 (or some other algorithm) hash. The technique he's describing is to hash the password client-side and send the MD5 over the wire to the server, which can then compare it to what's stored in the database to grant access.
Still, while better than nothing, there are a few problems with this, including:
While there are ways around it, really, the simplest thing to do is simply use SSL for secure connections. Truth is, the smartest thing to do is use combinations of all of the above, because even SSL isn't guaranteed to be secure if you don't have absolute control over the hardware you are browsing on.
I'm sorry, but your part in deciding the social mores of the society in which you live is actually quite minuscule. Maybe if you were actually gay, your opinion might have a little more weight, but given that 1) most gay people are offended by that use of the word and 2) you are trying to redefine it based on your own ignorant prejudices, I'm guessing you're not. (Incidentally, that's probably why you are not offended and why you think there's nothing wrong with using the word in that manner.)
My grandmother, who grew up in the deep South, referred to all black people as n-----s. It was actually quite embarrassing to the whole family, because she would sometimes even do it in open public. If someone asked her not to or pointed out that it was offensive, she would quickly get defensive about it, explaining that it wasn't said in a mean or derogatory way, "that's just what they were always called" when she was growing up, and she wasn't about to change just because someone else now gets offended by it. And many times, she was being honest, the word wasn't said with any particular malice.
That doesn't change the fact that she was still wrong. Because of the historical context of the word and the baggage that goes along with it, it is patently offensive in today's society.
A century ago, "gay" meant lively or colorful. Eventually, it came to be applied to mean homosexual, presumably because the lifestyle in which homosexuals were engaged was perceived as stereotypically lively and definitely colorful. However, as the word became more and more associated with homosexuality, it took on the same prejudice against homosexuality that has plagued the community for decades: it came to mean inferior, "sissy," and eventually, stupid. Of course, I'm guessing you know all of this already and I'm just pointing out the obvious, but your use of the word derives its roots directly from its derogatory and prejudicial use in describing homosexuals.
And that means that no matter how much you rationalize your use of it, and no matter how much you try to pretend like the way in which you used it is completely acceptable, you're wrong, too.
Maybe it's not a big deal to you. You might think that because I'm heterosexual, it shouldn't be a big deal to me. But when I see a class of normal, ordinary people stigmatized and persecuted and kids literally killing themselves because of anti-gay social pressures, it makes me sick and I won't just stand by and watch. So next time you're tempted to use "gay" in a derogatory manner, grow up or make sure that I'm not in earshot, lest I have to call out your idiocy in public in front of your family and friends.
Amen, brother!
Way back when, I used to have a Scientific Atlanta box that would show me a 12 channel by 2 hour grid. When they forced me onto a Motorola box, I got a seven channel by 30 minute grid, plus shitty advertisements plastered over around 1/3 of the screen real estate. NOT cool.
Personally, I think that if a cable company is going to force ads upon you with their program guide, they should deduct a bit off your bill, since it's being subsidized. Or better yet, just don't show me damn ads on my program guide, since I'm paying you for your service already. Of course, that philosophy doesn't mesh too well with the "We're going to milk every cent out of every revenue stream possible, no matter how much it pisses off our customers" philosophy of the cable companies.
Based on what?
If I described IBM to someone, I wouldn't call it an "electronics" company. I mean, sure, they dabble in electronics, but if I were describing it, I would call it a "computer" company or a "technology" company.
When I think of companies that are "electronics" companies, i.e. that's what they're primarily known for, I think of either hardware manufacturing companies such as Intel (as someone else mentioned here) or "consumer electronics" companies such as Sony, which is where my money is, and which was modded as "Troll" below because, I'm guessing, some fanboy got mod points.
So why do you think it's so obvious that the "electronics" company is IBM?
Trick question. It's impossible to win a patent war... unless you're a patent lawyer, of course, in which case you always win.
...Sony. Sounds like the kind of scummy win-at-all-costs, screw-everyone-over attitude the company has had the past couple of decades.
Posted earlier today in the Sydney Morning Herald
They probably get hundreds (or more) of requests to list all kinds of screwy things every day, and this probably just flew under the radar of people who didn't take the time to do the due diligence of verifying that it's a real project that's well underway and that actually does have a good chance of being released and relevant. I suspect that with all of the attention, they'll probably change their mind in pretty short order and all will be well again. I find both the filmmaker's frustration and IMDB's reticence understandable. It is a valuable resource, and I don't want it trashed with every schmo who thinks that his kid's birthday party video should be listed.
Besides, as mentioned before, the publicity doesn't hurt, and IMDB did them a huge favor in an indirect way. I had never heard of the project before, but I think it's an awesome idea, one I've actually thought of and wished on many occasions that someone would take up. I hope they do awesome, and their project has motivated me to pitch in and buy some frames.
I'm sorry, are you under the impression that this is new? There's a fine tradition of it, in fact. Ever watch Weekend Update on SNL? It's been around since 1975. Ever listened to Bill Mahar? George Carlin? Going back a while, how about Roger Waters? John Lennon? Bob Dylan? Keep going back, and you'll find Bob Hope and Bette Davis pitching war bonds and AWESOME political cartoonists developing a new art form with sometimes scathing brilliance to convey news and opinion to the masses. Go back before the days of television and mass entertainment. Ever heard of Mark Twain? Jonathan Swift?
Keep going back even further, and you'll find the likes of Charles Dickens, William Shakespeare, and even further, ancient Greek playwrights working to disseminate political information and present what is going on in the world in interesting, entertaining ways.
Entertainers have been informing us formally or informally, and trying to move people to act politically since, well, forever. If you think it's scary today, man, I feel sorry for what you'll think it's like in years ahead as new forms of news and entertainment, and even the literal physical media on which it is delivered, changes. It sounds to me like you're just experiencing a generation gap. Don't worry, it will all be okay, and kids these days won't ruin the world any more than you did.