For 16 episodes $15 would be fine if that was the HD price. For SD so long as it is 480P and in 16x9 I might be ok with it.
Why? It's the exact same content. It was already shot in HD. Yeah, it has to be mastered for Blu-Ray. The SD version has to be mastered for DVD too.
You should just be able to buy it in the best format your device supports. The fact that people are willing to pay more for HD just keeps allowing the industry to keep charging more for HD, for the exact same content.
You would think that if the order didn't matter then people wouldn't be creating and seeking out the cloned lists.
People seem to be getting upset that you have a company suing over the ordering of some tracks, but the demand is there for it, which suggests the value is also there. People value the MOS arrangement, which is why they can be successful in selling compilations. Also, if people are publishing lists that use the MOS brand but aren't technically identical to the likened MOS product - e.g. due to versions of tracks selected or mixing/lack thereof, then isn't that misrepresenting the MOS product?
It seems like the better way for MOS to solve this issue is to put out unique mixes/exclusively licensed versions of tracks. That way the content can't be copied by copying the list order.
There are two reasons: 1) AMD is really behind after they reworked their architecture, hence no pressure on Intel.
That's a really stupid thing to say, as if thousands of highly skilled engineers at Intel turn up every morning and just don't give a shit. If you've been paying attention, if there's any lacking on the desktop/server chips it's probably due to Intel going all out to take ARM's business in the mobile and tablet space.
I was going to post something similar to what you wrote, then I thought about it further.
Say you're not only texting someone, but you're actively engaged in a bidirectional conversation over SMS, whilst knowing they are driving. E.g. recipient responds to you "I'm driving right now, but what do you need?". If you text them back, then you a) Know they're driving and reading/responding to SMSs, b) Choosing to exacerbate this situation you know is illegal and dangerous.
I fully agree that SMS by design doesn't require an immediate/any response, but if you know someone is putting themselves in danger and you choose to encourage them to continue that behavior, then the argument that you're partly responsible isn't quite as outrageous as it sounds. If my SO replied to me that she was driving during an SMS conversation, for example, would I as a reasonable person choose to continue that conversation?
You're missing the point, which is that Dropbox did bad by obfuscating the code, because they should have made it Open Source right from the start and focus on selling their server-side hosting services.
Wrong.
Sure, that's easy to say in hindsight, now that they have built an extremely well established business out of it and are the premiere brand in the space. If they had open sourced it right from the start then they would have all the client and client-server development costs on their plate, meanwhile Joe Shmoe could have come along and copied it, pointed it at his own servers, and took a substantial chunk of the business opportunity with much less investment overhead.
In business you have to find a compromise between your ideals and reality. "Your ideals" perhaps not being the same as their ideals, either.
Apparently all you have to do is claim you did it in good faith or there was a clerical error... presto, you're off the hook.
Maybe that's easier to believe when you have automation software scrubbing YouTube for possibly infringing material and you have tens of thousands of copyright works to protect. When you're a lawyer dealing with one very specific public court document, it seems to me like it might be harder to play off.
A picture is emerging where not only are the tools available to the layman for protecting information difficult to use, their is a good chance that they also do not offer as much protection as we have long held them to provide.
For my phone, screen resolution is good enough(tm). Screen power consumption is in drastic need of improvement. It's consistently the biggest drain on the battery.
I may be naive, but I was under the impression that SIM cards required electrical contact to interface with. Is there some special trick the Russian's are using, or is there a radio device in Russian SIM cards, or all SIM cards? Or are they co-opting the phone somehow?
I see there is more information in the second article than the first. They are using fake towers to collect identifying information when the phone connects, which is quite different.
I may be naive, but I was under the impression that SIM cards required electrical contact to interface with. Is there some special trick the Russian's are using, or is there a radio device in Russian SIM cards, or all SIM cards? Or are they co-opting the phone somehow?
Maybe. But as a TWC customer, when using their service means you get stuck behind peers with well established shitty performance for months and months and months, the distinction between poor bandwidth and poor peering may be irrelevant to your perspective.
For consumers, capping typically refers to limits on the total transmitted and/or throttling applied, not to the channel bandwidth. It's perfectly reasonable to have a ceiling on the channel bandwidth for the service as advertised, and still call the service uncapped, so long as you don't artificially limit the consumer use of that advertised bandwidth and also make reasonable efforts to provide it.
That's true, but what if your visitors return frequently (family), or you have some of your own devices on the guest account so that e.g. you can use your routers wireless isolation feature for those devices, etc.?
Take the case of family: * You can put them on the guest network, but every time they come to visit you have to re-issue a password to all of them and reset it when they leave, or else Google has the credentials. * You can put them on the main network because you trust them with the password. However now Google has the credentials for your main network.
I think it's worth mentioning one other side-effect of this "send everything" backup policy: I basically cannot safely guest any visitor who has an Android phone onto my secured WiFi network without their phone sending my WiFi password straight to Google.
This puts me in the awkward predicament of denying visitors WiFi access, or constantly changing the guest password on every device I have that uses it.
If you're reading, Google folks, this is fricking annoying.
But, I gotta ask... if we don't trust Microsoft and Google, who is left?
I am fine with trusting Microsoft and Google, and indeed anyone with a reliable infrastructure, to provide a backup hosting service that significantly improves the experience with my phone in the event of a disaster. I'm just not fine with entrusting them with access to the contents of those backups, especially when I may not even be aware of or have granular control over what is in them.
A backup passphrase that only I know, and restricting processing to the client-side, would be sufficient to achieve this.
I turned off Backup on Android after discovering this. They're going to have to store them in the clear (or I guess reversible), so that the "backup" is reversible - i.e. you recover your backup or add a new phone to your account and it "just works" with your wifi.
However, there's no in-between. I can't choose to backup certain things but exclude very sensitive things, like my wifi password and other credentials. Given what we know about government snooping and the constant notices of breached databases these days, I just don't want to use the backup feature at all, and anyone who does is taking a bit of a gamble IMO.
Can't we have a sub-option to "also include credentials", at the very least?
It's not the only way. It's the only "dumb" way, but if Apple, Google and RIM said to the leading mail daemon developers "give your users a way to create a token they can pass on to us to query for new mail notifications", then it could be achieved securely.
On the one hand, fraud is bad. On the other, student government is usually a joke that deserves to be pranked.
Yeah but "prank" and "stealing credentials from 750 people and then using their identities without consent" don't really go hand in hand. Bad judgement on an epic scale..
Slashdot Mirror
Well, as an ex D-Link customer, I'm glad to see someone is analyzing their firmware.
For 16 episodes $15 would be fine if that was the HD price. For SD so long as it is 480P and in 16x9 I might be ok with it.
Why? It's the exact same content. It was already shot in HD. Yeah, it has to be mastered for Blu-Ray. The SD version has to be mastered for DVD too.
You should just be able to buy it in the best format your device supports. The fact that people are willing to pay more for HD just keeps allowing the industry to keep charging more for HD, for the exact same content.
So they are protecting us from over 60% of the contaminated water.
Emphasis on "us". I think I recall reading that "Fukushima's Water Problem" is destined to become California's water problem in 2014.
You would think that if the order didn't matter then people wouldn't be creating and seeking out the cloned lists.
People seem to be getting upset that you have a company suing over the ordering of some tracks, but the demand is there for it, which suggests the value is also there. People value the MOS arrangement, which is why they can be successful in selling compilations. Also, if people are publishing lists that use the MOS brand but aren't technically identical to the likened MOS product - e.g. due to versions of tracks selected or mixing/lack thereof, then isn't that misrepresenting the MOS product?
It seems like the better way for MOS to solve this issue is to put out unique mixes/exclusively licensed versions of tracks. That way the content can't be copied by copying the list order.
There are two reasons:
1) AMD is really behind after they reworked their architecture, hence no pressure on Intel.
That's a really stupid thing to say, as if thousands of highly skilled engineers at Intel turn up every morning and just don't give a shit. If you've been paying attention, if there's any lacking on the desktop/server chips it's probably due to Intel going all out to take ARM's business in the mobile and tablet space.
I was going to post something similar to what you wrote, then I thought about it further.
Say you're not only texting someone, but you're actively engaged in a bidirectional conversation over SMS, whilst knowing they are driving. E.g. recipient responds to you "I'm driving right now, but what do you need?". If you text them back, then you a) Know they're driving and reading/responding to SMSs, b) Choosing to exacerbate this situation you know is illegal and dangerous.
I fully agree that SMS by design doesn't require an immediate/any response, but if you know someone is putting themselves in danger and you choose to encourage them to continue that behavior, then the argument that you're partly responsible isn't quite as outrageous as it sounds. If my SO replied to me that she was driving during an SMS conversation, for example, would I as a reasonable person choose to continue that conversation?
You're missing the point, which is that Dropbox did bad by obfuscating the code, because they should have made it Open Source right from the start and focus on selling their server-side hosting services.
Wrong.
Sure, that's easy to say in hindsight, now that they have built an extremely well established business out of it and are the premiere brand in the space. If they had open sourced it right from the start then they would have all the client and client-server development costs on their plate, meanwhile Joe Shmoe could have come along and copied it, pointed it at his own servers, and took a substantial chunk of the business opportunity with much less investment overhead.
In business you have to find a compromise between your ideals and reality. "Your ideals" perhaps not being the same as their ideals, either.
Apparently all you have to do is claim you did it in good faith or there was a clerical error ... presto, you're off the hook.
Maybe that's easier to believe when you have automation software scrubbing YouTube for possibly infringing material and you have tens of thousands of copyright works to protect. When you're a lawyer dealing with one very specific public court document, it seems to me like it might be harder to play off.
their/there, before the gn's jump all over me for a typo ;)
There was also an article on Slashdot just over a week ago about a separate advance against RSA.
http://it.slashdot.org/story/13/08/06/2056239/math-advance-suggest-rsa-encryption-could-fall-within-5-years
A picture is emerging where not only are the tools available to the layman for protecting information difficult to use, their is a good chance that they also do not offer as much protection as we have long held them to provide.
I severely doubt this is news to the NSA.
For my phone, screen resolution is good enough(tm). Screen power consumption is in drastic need of improvement. It's consistently the biggest drain on the battery.
I may be naive, but I was under the impression that SIM cards required electrical contact to interface with. Is there some special trick the Russian's are using, or is there a radio device in Russian SIM cards, or all SIM cards? Or are they co-opting the phone somehow?
I see there is more information in the second article than the first. They are using fake towers to collect identifying information when the phone connects, which is quite different.
I may be naive, but I was under the impression that SIM cards required electrical contact to interface with. Is there some special trick the Russian's are using, or is there a radio device in Russian SIM cards, or all SIM cards? Or are they co-opting the phone somehow?
time warner doesn't have a bandwidth cap
Maybe. But as a TWC customer, when using their service means you get stuck behind peers with well established shitty performance for months and months and months, the distinction between poor bandwidth and poor peering may be irrelevant to your perspective.
https://www.google.com/search?q=twc+slow+youtube
The ROT-13 jokes are really getting old, and anyone who cares about their security has already upgraded to ROT-26.
I dont think somehow this is such a bad idea. I mean, they could have just deleted all those pages really
If nobody can find them what's the difference? Is this like getting out of a speeding ticket on a technicality?
Nobody is going to publish content to places no visitors will go. That defeats the whole point of publishing.
For consumers, capping typically refers to limits on the total transmitted and/or throttling applied, not to the channel bandwidth. It's perfectly reasonable to have a ceiling on the channel bandwidth for the service as advertised, and still call the service uncapped, so long as you don't artificially limit the consumer use of that advertised bandwidth and also make reasonable efforts to provide it.
This is probably where the "rewritten" part comes in. I would assume they either got consent or rewrote the parts that they didn't have consent for.
That's true, but what if your visitors return frequently (family), or you have some of your own devices on the guest account so that e.g. you can use your routers wireless isolation feature for those devices, etc.?
Take the case of family:
* You can put them on the guest network, but every time they come to visit you have to re-issue a password to all of them and reset it when they leave, or else Google has the credentials.
* You can put them on the main network because you trust them with the password. However now Google has the credentials for your main network.
I think it's worth mentioning one other side-effect of this "send everything" backup policy: I basically cannot safely guest any visitor who has an Android phone onto my secured WiFi network without their phone sending my WiFi password straight to Google.
This puts me in the awkward predicament of denying visitors WiFi access, or constantly changing the guest password on every device I have that uses it.
If you're reading, Google folks, this is fricking annoying.
But, I gotta ask ... if we don't trust Microsoft and Google, who is left?
I am fine with trusting Microsoft and Google, and indeed anyone with a reliable infrastructure, to provide a backup hosting service that significantly improves the experience with my phone in the event of a disaster. I'm just not fine with entrusting them with access to the contents of those backups, especially when I may not even be aware of or have granular control over what is in them.
A backup passphrase that only I know, and restricting processing to the client-side, would be sufficient to achieve this.
I turned off Backup on Android after discovering this. They're going to have to store them in the clear (or I guess reversible), so that the "backup" is reversible - i.e. you recover your backup or add a new phone to your account and it "just works" with your wifi.
However, there's no in-between. I can't choose to backup certain things but exclude very sensitive things, like my wifi password and other credentials. Given what we know about government snooping and the constant notices of breached databases these days, I just don't want to use the backup feature at all, and anyone who does is taking a bit of a gamble IMO.
Can't we have a sub-option to "also include credentials", at the very least?
It's not the only way. It's the only "dumb" way, but if Apple, Google and RIM said to the leading mail daemon developers "give your users a way to create a token they can pass on to us to query for new mail notifications", then it could be achieved securely.
On the one hand, fraud is bad. On the other, student government is usually a joke that deserves to be pranked.
Yeah but "prank" and "stealing credentials from 750 people and then using their identities without consent" don't really go hand in hand. Bad judgement on an epic scale..