If you're not happy with their terms, you don't have to purchase from their business. But you won't find friendlier terms anywhere for the quality copyright protected content they're legally providing online. The commercial success of iTunes is an incentive to the record companies to pay attention to online distribution. I'm sure Apple sees it as a step along a path, not the end goal. They're trying to get the ball moving at all, and you're upset that it's not speeding along at 100 mph.
Apple's distribution rights are obviously limited to the US by the contracts they signed with the music companies. Or do you think Apple insisted on this themselves?
I own stock in several companies. Said companies own chairs, Microsoft Office licenses, copier paper, etc. Do I have the right to copy or use their MS Office installation? Can I go into the company and sit in the comfy Aeron chairs? And take home some paper while I'm there? NO.
That'd be fine. He'd be constantly burning the blood sugar generated for energy.
But if your goal is weight loss rather than running 26 miles in one shot, you want to exhaust your blood sugar and force your body to start burning stored fat for energy. Short runs don't accomplish this, which is why a long walk can help you lose weight better than a shorter, high intensity run.
caffeine before a workout helps you lose weight quicker. the classic weight lifter formula is ephedrine-caffeine-aspirin, and there is substantial lab results to back it up. too bad ephedra is off the market now.
tea has other health supporting qualities, but a lack of caffeine doesn't help with losing weight.
What kind of protein powder? Whey protein commonly used by weightlifters is SO easy to absorb that up to half of it can be used for energy if your body doesn't have carbs to burn - so having some carbs then can help the protein turn into muscle which i'm guessing is what you want.
Simple: white sugar, white bread Complex: whole grain, fruit
Simple carbohydrates cause an immediate spike in blood sugar, followed by an immediate plummetting in blood sugar. While the blood sugar is spiked way up your body stores it as fat. Then when it plummets you're tired. When white sugar hits a civilization, that's when heart disease and a host of other problems skyrocket - it's a drug, not a food. Valueless for running a marathon.
Complex carbs cause a gradual rise in blood sugar that never goes to super high levels, and there is less potential for socking it away as fat. Necessary for running a marathon.
It took people a long time to figure out that there were good and bad cholesterols too, and there are still too many people who don't get the distinction and just focus on total level.
if everyone gets different inkblots....
on
Inkblot Passwords
·
· Score: 1
why not just give everyone a series of different questions about their life? what is soooo special about inkblots? 1000 people may have 500 different answers for one inkblot, and about 500 different answers to 'what city were you born in?' I would personally have much more confidence in my ability to answer what city i was born in with the same answer consistently than I would what does given inkblot look like.
the inkblots don't add randomness, the giving people different inkblots is much more responsible for that. And some of those inkblots really didn't look like pictures to me - what do i do then, am i just screwed? I'll never remember what i decided on last time if i need to recreate my password again. while i would remember my mother's maiden name.
ANY system that's used will give better passwords than 'normal', but that doesn't mean this system is great - if it doesn't pass the laugh test on slashdot do you seriously see someone using it to secure their online banking?
That is that 100 people seeing the inkblots will see 100 different things. Not so. 90 of them will see identical things. The other 10 are plotting violent revolution, worship satan, are on lsd, etc - normal people see the same things in inblots. This is the basis of Rorshack tests btw, normal people see the same things, if you see something else it is a clear sign of mental abnormality. So now rather than 100 people picking passwords that are their kids names, you have 90 people picking bnbmskeiotspelk - a somewhat strong password, but now one password that works on 90 accounts.
Not an improvement.
Why not ask 10 different questions about your life to generate your password, each one generating 2 letters - then if you forget your password you just answer the ten question again. Things like city of birth, moms maiden name, etc that wont change.
The ATM security model is a two part model - one part physical (do you have the card) the other part mental (do you know the password). You have to satisfy BOTH conditions to gain access. Completely different security model than a password for a web site.
My point about the 26 was that it would be a lot better to replace that 26 with 40 - something that the ink blot method rules out. If your only security model is that it would take a long time to try all the combinations of characters, then anything that limits that set of characters is a step in the wrong direction.
The current password security model assumes (incorrectly) that the characters chosen are usually random. The ink blot model COMPLETELY RULES OUT the possibility of them being random - psychiatrists used the rorshack tests for years under the assumption that 'normal' people see the same patterns in inkblots. So every normal persons password would be the same and only freaks like me would.... wait a minute... never mind, this security model ROX you should implement it immediately:)
Missing the point - who has passwords this long?
on
Inkblot Passwords
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
Most web sites, and I'm sure hotmail is in this number, limit the size of the password field. If I had committed to memory a random string that was 1000 characters long, it doesn't matter much when the web site asking for a password only accepts 10 characters. Now, when you're dealing with a 10 character limit (a reasonable real life example) it matters A LOT if your dictionary is 50% larger.
How is this a strong password?
on
Inkblot Passwords
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
There's no mixing of case, numbers, etc. It's twenty random characters. Now you may remember these 20 characters better than your normal random characters but it leaves you with a password where there are only 26 options for the first character, 26 for the next, etc. - it's still trivially easy for a password generator to crack.
Plus, how many places are there on the web that limit the lenght of passwords to like 8 or 10? If you use 4 inblots and generate an 8 character string of letters all in one case, that's not exactly a strong password.
Did those inblots suck ass or what? Some just really didn't lend themselves to pictures for me.
How many of the 'monopoly' steel companies from 100 years ago are still around? How many are still powerful? Are any still a monopoly?
The fact is that most companies die, period. Theoretically they could live forever under our system of law - practically though they don't. Microsoft will be no different. I can't personally think of any company past Nokia that is more than 300 years old, and they've only done that through constant self-transformation. Monopoly is inherently self-destructive, and implodes within 50 years. This statement can be disproved by one example of a monopoly that thrived for longer than that (WITHOUT government support please). Can anyone provide a single example?
The problem with GOVERNMENT power is that governments quite often live HUNDREDS UPON HUNDREDS of years, and always seek to increase their power. Which is the real threat, and which is the bogeyman?
That being said, monopolies suck and are bad for the consumer. However, no matter how many times I re-read the constitution I can find NO mention of any duty of the government to make the consumer happy. And I firmly believe that if that's the goal, the easiest way to do that is to remove government meddling in the markets. The only legitimate use I can think of for government in the business world is to insist that the books be straight, and to change the current system so that costs that are currently externalized (like cleaning up waste, etc) and pushed off on the government become internalized so that the company's business model reflects all its impacts on the community. Right now the advanced powers of the world take unfair advantage of the undeveloped nations, and this happens largely through government intervention in markets that support domestic products that shouldn't be protected.
Where do NASCAP and other such organizations get the right to require you to license their music for public performance? This isn't copyright based as far as I know. Is there another specific law that grants this right?
They've really been pushing the envelope with this. For example, requiring a nightclub to pay a yearly license to publicly play recorded music (to entertain the patrons while waiting for the acts to come on) seems reasonable - the club is getting some real value from the playing of the music. But they've also claimed that if a restaurant has kitchen staff listening to the radio loud enough for patrons to hear it, then the restaurant also needs to pay this 'public performance' licensing fee. For RADIO which is broadcast free, and isn't played directly to the patrons. They've also come after bars with TVs - because their songs may be included in a TV ad. Like anyone WANTED to have the TV ads in the first place!, let alone was willing to pay for them. I REALLY don't understand where this right to restrict public performance (as opposed to copying and redistribution) comes from. Obviously laws aimed at book publishers 200 years ago had no such provisions, and I've never heard of book publishers coming after someone for publicly reciting poetry. Comments or explantions?
"Would an intelligent consumer buy white flour from a cocaine dealer? I think not."
I would:)
It really doesn't matter how it was advertised though, now does it? Macrovision defeating signal cleaners are advertised as white-bread - and they're not. Glass bongs are advertised as 'for tobacco use only' - and they're not. No matter what else, these devices have substantial legitimate uses, and as the article pointed out the company is making NO effort to do any preliminary research - to the point of suing people who don't even HAVE a directTV of stealing directTV scrambled content. I'm sorry, but that's an asshat move, and a huge waste of taxpayer resources - you do realize that no matter how great this might be for direcTV they're getting money and the taxpayer is paying for all of the court time even in utterly frivolous cases like that one.
Distributing copyrighted material to more than 10 people in 180 days to the tune of $2,500+ dollars is already a felony. This bill defines placing a single file on a P2P network as equivalent to the above criminal action - regardless of whether anyone downloads it, and regardless of any economic cost or lack thereof.
I share a song I wrote, WANTING it to go out and spread as far as it can. Someone downloads it from me and also shares it. I want them to share it - but they don't know that, there's no way to attach a text file to it declaring what my intention is, so when they share it they haven't gotten permission from the copyright holder and in order to protect my copyright they can be jailed. Ridiculous. The copyright owner should need to complain at a minimum, else where's the injured party?
ACCOPS - Author, Consumer, and Computer Owner Protection and Security
RAVE - Reducing
Americans' Vulnerability to Ecstasy Act
You want to know who REALLY runs the country now? It's obviously the people who thought up the ridiculous names for G.I. Joe vehicles so that they could have acronyms like the Cobra FANG, HISS, SNAKE, etc. Check out these names: http://crimsonguard.tripod.com/vehicles.html - notice a striking resemblance to current law names?
This law only applies IN North Carolina, there's no interstate commerce involved. Hence, no conflict with the DMCA or any other federal law because it's not in their jurisdiction. The law doesn't say anything about what goes on in other states, and doesn't affect federal courts. So, what this means is that a local company - one with offices/plants/etc ONLY in North Carolina can make these refill cartridges and sell them like mad. They can't be tried in federal court because there's no interstate commerce, and thus no jurisdiction. Now, a national company couldn't do this, they could still be subject to DMCA suits in federal court - but there's nothing preventing them from spinning off a unit to pursue this market. And of course the company can't sell them across state lines without coming into federal jurisdiction again, so this is no benefit to the rest of us except as a motivator to write our legislatures. If similar laws were enacted in the majority of states (and what voter wouldn't be in favor of this?) then Lexmark's victory in federal court would be largely void.
Slashdot Mirror
If you're not happy with their terms, you don't have to purchase from their business. But you won't find friendlier terms anywhere for the quality copyright protected content they're legally providing online. The commercial success of iTunes is an incentive to the record companies to pay attention to online distribution. I'm sure Apple sees it as a step along a path, not the end goal. They're trying to get the ball moving at all, and you're upset that it's not speeding along at 100 mph.
Apple's distribution rights are obviously limited to the US by the contracts they signed with the music companies. Or do you think Apple insisted on this themselves?
I own stock in several companies. Said companies own chairs, Microsoft Office licenses, copier paper, etc. Do I have the right to copy or use their MS Office installation? Can I go into the company and sit in the comfy Aeron chairs? And take home some paper while I'm there? NO.
That'd be fine. He'd be constantly burning the blood sugar generated for energy.
But if your goal is weight loss rather than running 26 miles in one shot, you want to exhaust your blood sugar and force your body to start burning stored fat for energy. Short runs don't accomplish this, which is why a long walk can help you lose weight better than a shorter, high intensity run.
If you're looking for weight loss you want meth pure and simple. Costs less too.
'Ride the snake'
caffeine before a workout helps you lose weight quicker. the classic weight lifter formula is ephedrine-caffeine-aspirin, and there is substantial lab results to back it up. too bad ephedra is off the market now.
tea has other health supporting qualities, but a lack of caffeine doesn't help with losing weight.
BBQ sauce is high in sugar.
What kind of protein powder? Whey protein commonly used by weightlifters is SO easy to absorb that up to half of it can be used for energy if your body doesn't have carbs to burn - so having some carbs then can help the protein turn into muscle which i'm guessing is what you want.
Simple: white sugar, white bread
Complex: whole grain, fruit
Simple carbohydrates cause an immediate spike in blood sugar, followed by an immediate plummetting in blood sugar. While the blood sugar is spiked way up your body stores it as fat. Then when it plummets you're tired. When white sugar hits a civilization, that's when heart disease and a host of other problems skyrocket - it's a drug, not a food. Valueless for running a marathon.
Complex carbs cause a gradual rise in blood sugar that never goes to super high levels, and there is less potential for socking it away as fat. Necessary for running a marathon.
It took people a long time to figure out that there were good and bad cholesterols too, and there are still too many people who don't get the distinction and just focus on total level.
why not just give everyone a series of different questions about their life? what is soooo special about inkblots? 1000 people may have 500 different answers for one inkblot, and about 500 different answers to 'what city were you born in?' I would personally have much more confidence in my ability to answer what city i was born in with the same answer consistently than I would what does given inkblot look like.
the inkblots don't add randomness, the giving people different inkblots is much more responsible for that. And some of those inkblots really didn't look like pictures to me - what do i do then, am i just screwed? I'll never remember what i decided on last time if i need to recreate my password again. while i would remember my mother's maiden name.
ANY system that's used will give better passwords than 'normal', but that doesn't mean this system is great - if it doesn't pass the laugh test on slashdot do you seriously see someone using it to secure their online banking?
That is that 100 people seeing the inkblots will see 100 different things. Not so. 90 of them will see identical things. The other 10 are plotting violent revolution, worship satan, are on lsd, etc - normal people see the same things in inblots. This is the basis of Rorshack tests btw, normal people see the same things, if you see something else it is a clear sign of mental abnormality. So now rather than 100 people picking passwords that are their kids names, you have 90 people picking bnbmskeiotspelk - a somewhat strong password, but now one password that works on 90 accounts.
Not an improvement.
Why not ask 10 different questions about your life to generate your password, each one generating 2 letters - then if you forget your password you just answer the ten question again. Things like city of birth, moms maiden name, etc that wont change.
The ATM security model is a two part model - one part physical (do you have the card) the other part mental (do you know the password). You have to satisfy BOTH conditions to gain access. Completely different security model than a password for a web site.
:)
My point about the 26 was that it would be a lot better to replace that 26 with 40 - something that the ink blot method rules out. If your only security model is that it would take a long time to try all the combinations of characters, then anything that limits that set of characters is a step in the wrong direction.
The current password security model assumes (incorrectly) that the characters chosen are usually random. The ink blot model COMPLETELY RULES OUT the possibility of them being random - psychiatrists used the rorshack tests for years under the assumption that 'normal' people see the same patterns in inkblots. So every normal persons password would be the same and only freaks like me would.... wait a minute... never mind, this security model ROX you should implement it immediately
Most web sites, and I'm sure hotmail is in this number, limit the size of the password field. If I had committed to memory a random string that was 1000 characters long, it doesn't matter much when the web site asking for a password only accepts 10 characters. Now, when you're dealing with a 10 character limit (a reasonable real life example) it matters A LOT if your dictionary is 50% larger.
There's no mixing of case, numbers, etc. It's twenty random characters. Now you may remember these 20 characters better than your normal random characters but it leaves you with a password where there are only 26 options for the first character, 26 for the next, etc. - it's still trivially easy for a password generator to crack.
Plus, how many places are there on the web that limit the lenght of passwords to like 8 or 10? If you use 4 inblots and generate an 8 character string of letters all in one case, that's not exactly a strong password.
Did those inblots suck ass or what? Some just really didn't lend themselves to pictures for me.
you will be assimilated....
;)
you will service...us
I am Dan Rather of Borg
So no DOJ or DOS next year right?
Somehow I think Bush will eventually sign it no matter what, or his buddy ashcroft will be out on the street.
unfortunately it sucks ass.
frequent outages that the company denies (and won't even discuss until you idiotically restart your network).
this is my experience in two different counties.
How many of the 'monopoly' steel companies from 100 years ago are still around? How many are still powerful? Are any still a monopoly?
The fact is that most companies die, period. Theoretically they could live forever under our system of law - practically though they don't. Microsoft will be no different. I can't personally think of any company past Nokia that is more than 300 years old, and they've only done that through constant self-transformation. Monopoly is inherently self-destructive, and implodes within 50 years. This statement can be disproved by one example of a monopoly that thrived for longer than that (WITHOUT government support please). Can anyone provide a single example?
The problem with GOVERNMENT power is that governments quite often live HUNDREDS UPON HUNDREDS of years, and always seek to increase their power. Which is the real threat, and which is the bogeyman?
That being said, monopolies suck and are bad for the consumer. However, no matter how many times I re-read the constitution I can find NO mention of any duty of the government to make the consumer happy. And I firmly believe that if that's the goal, the easiest way to do that is to remove government meddling in the markets. The only legitimate use I can think of for government in the business world is to insist that the books be straight, and to change the current system so that costs that are currently externalized (like cleaning up waste, etc) and pushed off on the government become internalized so that the company's business model reflects all its impacts on the community. Right now the advanced powers of the world take unfair advantage of the undeveloped nations, and this happens largely through government intervention in markets that support domestic products that shouldn't be protected.
Where do NASCAP and other such organizations get the right to require you to license their music for public performance? This isn't copyright based as far as I know. Is there another specific law that grants this right?
They've really been pushing the envelope with this. For example, requiring a nightclub to pay a yearly license to publicly play recorded music (to entertain the patrons while waiting for the acts to come on) seems reasonable - the club is getting some real value from the playing of the music. But they've also claimed that if a restaurant has kitchen staff listening to the radio loud enough for patrons to hear it, then the restaurant also needs to pay this 'public performance' licensing fee. For RADIO which is broadcast free, and isn't played directly to the patrons. They've also come after bars with TVs - because their songs may be included in a TV ad. Like anyone WANTED to have the TV ads in the first place!, let alone was willing to pay for them. I REALLY don't understand where this right to restrict public performance (as opposed to copying and redistribution) comes from. Obviously laws aimed at book publishers 200 years ago had no such provisions, and I've never heard of book publishers coming after someone for publicly reciting poetry. Comments or explantions?
You didn't think it was George Bush did you?
"Would an intelligent consumer buy white flour from a cocaine dealer? I think not."
:)
I would
It really doesn't matter how it was advertised though, now does it? Macrovision defeating signal cleaners are advertised as white-bread - and they're not. Glass bongs are advertised as 'for tobacco use only' - and they're not. No matter what else, these devices have substantial legitimate uses, and as the article pointed out the company is making NO effort to do any preliminary research - to the point of suing people who don't even HAVE a directTV of stealing directTV scrambled content. I'm sorry, but that's an asshat move, and a huge waste of taxpayer resources - you do realize that no matter how great this might be for direcTV they're getting money and the taxpayer is paying for all of the court time even in utterly frivolous cases like that one.
Don't just spout off early on to get mod points, it's incredibly annoying.
Distributing copyrighted material to more than 10 people in 180 days to the tune of $2,500+ dollars is already a felony. This bill defines placing a single file on a P2P network as equivalent to the above criminal action - regardless of whether anyone downloads it, and regardless of any economic cost or lack thereof.
I share a song I wrote, WANTING it to go out and spread as far as it can. Someone downloads it from me and also shares it. I want them to share it - but they don't know that, there's no way to attach a text file to it declaring what my intention is, so when they share it they haven't gotten permission from the copyright holder and in order to protect my copyright they can be jailed. Ridiculous. The copyright owner should need to complain at a minimum, else where's the injured party?
ACCOPS - Author, Consumer, and Computer Owner Protection and Security
RAVE - Reducing Americans' Vulnerability to Ecstasy Act
You want to know who REALLY runs the country now? It's obviously the people who thought up the ridiculous names for G.I. Joe vehicles so that they could have acronyms like the Cobra FANG, HISS, SNAKE, etc. Check out these names: http://crimsonguard.tripod.com/vehicles.html - notice a striking resemblance to current law names?
This law only applies IN North Carolina, there's no interstate commerce involved. Hence, no conflict with the DMCA or any other federal law because it's not in their jurisdiction. The law doesn't say anything about what goes on in other states, and doesn't affect federal courts. So, what this means is that a local company - one with offices/plants/etc ONLY in North Carolina can make these refill cartridges and sell them like mad. They can't be tried in federal court because there's no interstate commerce, and thus no jurisdiction. Now, a national company couldn't do this, they could still be subject to DMCA suits in federal court - but there's nothing preventing them from spinning off a unit to pursue this market. And of course the company can't sell them across state lines without coming into federal jurisdiction again, so this is no benefit to the rest of us except as a motivator to write our legislatures. If similar laws were enacted in the majority of states (and what voter wouldn't be in favor of this?) then Lexmark's victory in federal court would be largely void.