Remember, it's not how popular it was, it's how important and valuable it was. I thought the Turing award was, unofficially, only for deep theory shit.
I agree. On a related note, this is one of the main drawbacks of Internet discussion forums, mailing lists etc. Everyone acts like an expert and it's almost impossible to tell who is actually an expert and who is just ignorant or pushing his agenda. It's not disastrous when it happens on ordinary forums, but very bad when it happens on sites like Wikipedia which are supposed to inform people or even slashdot (a lot of undecided readers come to slashdot).
I for one laughed at parent. It's genuinely funny, after all those non-funny "in korea...only old people" and "i for one welcome our new ____ over lords" posts.
Err, Providing a wikipedia entry to support something like this isn't good considering how biased/wrong wikipedia can be. Especially since this topic has so much to do with USA and this is so controversial in USA (although everyone outside knows the truth) and Wikipedia is virtually controlled by US people (editors).
It will make coding very hard in most situations and impossible in others. Now we'll have to have delimiters everytime we mention a domain name or a URL and the computer has to recognize it. There are protocols and applications which do not use delimiters for domain names, and they won't work because of this. And do we really need spaces in domain names? Aren't hyphens enough?
So is it legal for journalists to publish your social security number, name, address, and mother's maiden name? Perhaps that was given to them by the recent thieves of the Checkpoint data?
If the government gave me a special SSN based on my race then yes (no, i'm not supporting any conspiracy theories, i'm just saying it as an example). If my mother's maiden name is connect with a serial killer, then yes. If I get a nuclear bomb addressed to me, then yes (yes, i'm serious). When there is a reason, journalist should have the freedom to publish most secrets.
Well, I've heard of an Audio CD protection scheme that put small errors in the CD on purpose so that when played by a hardware player the error is unnoticeable, but when ripped it was horrible or something. But I heard it too many compatibility problems and it was eventually stopped. So it *might* be possible to introduce *some* DVD protection scheme that gives bad results when ripped, although I don't think it will be successful.
Actually, If I'm not mistaken seriously, DVDCSS was encryption. Only the companies who payed and signed an agreement with DVD-CCA were given the method to decrypt DVDCSS and were allowed to make devices/software that can decrypt the DVD. So, technically it's possible to make another, better encryption system, which is hard to break. But still it's possible to reverse-engineer an existing DVD software or player, and it's also possible to make those apps more un-reverse-engineerable (yup, add this word to the oxford dictionary).
Your logic is interesting. Yes, if it's watcheable, then it's copyable. But if the copy-protection mechanism is really good, there might be quality loss. And the the mechanism might designed to make the quality loss so much that, it's not a viable option.
BTW, please tell me if I'm completely mistaken about that DVDCSS thing. (but my logic might still hold)
Slashdotters wouldn't have asked this question if the concerned company wasn't Google. Google obviously comes before silly things like free information.
Which carries more weight: the right of Apple to protect their trade secrets or the rights of journalists to protect their sources?
Would this really have been a question for slashdotters if the concerned party was someone other than Apple? I suppose only Apple's "trade secrets" are valuable enough to "protect".
Slashdot Mirror
This either means that even rudimentary computer security is far too complex for the average person, or that I need to get some new friends.
Neither. People are stupid. The end.
Stop suffixing every post with "tom". It pisses us off. We don't care what your name is. Really.
WTF is personal reponsibility? Is it another one of those American buzzwords? Would you care to explain it to us non-americans?
How long, do you guess, till microsoft patents the concept behind that Target Alert extension.
Commercial version of GPL? They want GNU to bend over?
Test case? Do you think they are going to fight *for* EULAs?
Remember, it's not how popular it was, it's how important and valuable it was. I thought the Turing award was, unofficially, only for deep theory shit.
I agree. On a related note, this is one of the main drawbacks of Internet discussion forums, mailing lists etc. Everyone acts like an expert and it's almost impossible to tell who is actually an expert and who is just ignorant or pushing his agenda. It's not disastrous when it happens on ordinary forums, but very bad when it happens on sites like Wikipedia which are supposed to inform people or even slashdot (a lot of undecided readers come to slashdot).
People don't know how to STFU.
I for one laughed at parent. It's genuinely funny, after all those non-funny "in korea...only old people" and "i for one welcome our new ____ over lords" posts.
Err, Providing a wikipedia entry to support something like this isn't good considering how biased/wrong wikipedia can be. Especially since this topic has so much to do with USA and this is so controversial in USA (although everyone outside knows the truth) and Wikipedia is virtually controlled by US people (editors).
A key question is whether the US economy will benefit relative the rest of the world,
It doesn't matter whether a country's economy benifits from this. The safety of our Evironment is more important than the economy of a country.
It will make coding very hard in most situations and impossible in others. Now we'll have to have delimiters everytime we mention a domain name or a URL and the computer has to recognize it. There are protocols and applications which do not use delimiters for domain names, and they won't work because of this. And do we really need spaces in domain names? Aren't hyphens enough?
No, it's not dropping support for country specific TLDs (did i use the right term?). .cx, .us, .de etc., will all work. It disabled support for Internationalized domain names. Internationalized domain names are domain names with characters from non-english languages. http://www.verisign.com/products-services/naming-a nd-directory-services/naming-services/internationa lized-domain-names/index.html. IE doesn't support this too. It's all in TFA.
Not International domain names. Internationalized domain names.
So is it legal for journalists to publish your social security number, name, address, and mother's maiden name? Perhaps that was given to them by the recent thieves of the Checkpoint data?
If the government gave me a special SSN based on my race then yes (no, i'm not supporting any conspiracy theories, i'm just saying it as an example). If my mother's maiden name is connect with a serial killer, then yes. If I get a nuclear bomb addressed to me, then yes (yes, i'm serious). When there is a reason, journalist should have the freedom to publish most secrets.
Well, I've heard of an Audio CD protection scheme that put small errors in the CD on purpose so that when played by a hardware player the error is unnoticeable, but when ripped it was horrible or something. But I heard it too many compatibility problems and it was eventually stopped. So it *might* be possible to introduce *some* DVD protection scheme that gives bad results when ripped, although I don't think it will be successful.
Actually, If I'm not mistaken seriously, DVDCSS was encryption. Only the companies who payed and signed an agreement with DVD-CCA were given the method to decrypt DVDCSS and were allowed to make devices/software that can decrypt the DVD. So, technically it's possible to make another, better encryption system, which is hard to break. But still it's possible to reverse-engineer an existing DVD software or player, and it's also possible to make those apps more un-reverse-engineerable (yup, add this word to the oxford dictionary).
Your logic is interesting. Yes, if it's watcheable, then it's copyable. But if the copy-protection mechanism is really good, there might be quality loss. And the the mechanism might designed to make the quality loss so much that, it's not a viable option.
BTW, please tell me if I'm completely mistaken about that DVDCSS thing. (but my logic might still hold)
Then what does Microsoft have a monopoly on? There are other OSes I can easily use.
Worthless.
Should public domain information be free?
Slashdotters wouldn't have asked this question if the concerned company wasn't Google. Google obviously comes before silly things like free information.
Which carries more weight: the right of Apple to protect their trade secrets or the rights of journalists to protect their sources?
Would this really have been a question for slashdotters if the concerned party was someone other than Apple? I suppose only Apple's "trade secrets" are valuable enough to "protect".
Err, India has software patents, it was introduced recently.
Support for software patents for just 800 people?
I agree.
retard
n : a person of subnormal intelligence
Retard means a mentally disabled person (among other things).