Isn't this exactly what Extended Verification Certificates were supposed to be for?
Why should I trust some arbitrary party to vet the security of a website by the virtue it's accessible with a particular TLD? I get that TLS shouldn't require any third parties merely to establish a secure pipe, but if you *are* looking for a third party to vet other stuff, like your bank's privacy policy and whatnot, this is exactly what PKI *does* do well, at the protocol level.
TFA is actually one of the first coherent explanations of bufferbloat I've seen. Bufferbloat.net tells me they can fix my chaotic and laggy network performance, alright, fine. But... how?
Um, the Constitution only applies to the government. The Constitution only says what the government is allowed to do, not what it must do on behalf of the people, or what the people must do. No amendment can change that. Private individuals cannot violate your "right to free speech" or your "right to privacy" save physically forcing you to (and even then, they're not violating the constitution, they're taking action that the government may lawfully intervene in to protect your rights). The "right to privacy" doesn't mean people can't ask for your passwords, it means they can't physically force you to give it up (you know, under threat of violence or whatnot). Facebook already asks for your passwords for other accounts, by the way!
But I use free software H.264 encoders and decoders already. There's been a lot of discussion about patents and FOSS software licenses, but that's all there's been. Free software and especially open source software is copyright thing and development methodology first, not a patent thing.
It's the same debate we had with MP3. Until the government wants to come around and say, "Your free software implementation is [somehow] illegal" the argument that H.264 is non-free -- or any piece of software, no matter how it's licensed -- is pure FUD. (And even if the state were to come around and say stop-you-can't-do-that, what would they do about it? We've already got the source code, because, you know, open source.)
If you want to say it's a bad idea because Mozilla would get sued into the ground, say that. But don't claim it's not non-free software because some third party wants to assert their power.
Digital cinemas already ship stereoscopic videos in a 48fps container, odd frames for the left eye, even frames for the right eye, but to be displayed at the same time (Or as close as possible, RealD stereoscopic theaters project 144 fps, and shows the left eye then right eye three times each per frame).
The Hobbit, by contrast, is going to (somehow) ship in a 96fps container.
It's also very hard to reduce the framerate: shooting in 48fps reduces your shutter time from 1/48s to 1/96s, reducing the (very necessary) motion blur, so it's not as simple as just removing every other frame.
There's plenty of open source encoders and decoders available. ffmpeg, x264 (produced for VLC) to start.
The notion that H.264 is not "free" isn't a result of a development methodology, it's because people think that somehow patents make it that way, despite the fact that the software authors have no choice in the matter.
Subsidiarity? Do you mean subsidy? It's not just any money, it's a voucher. It's an option for an individual to go to a school, which the school can in turn redeem for funding. There's no endorsement or establishment of religion implied anywhere in the process. Government cannot prohibit money from going to a church or religious organization purely on the basis that it's a religious organization, that would be a violation of the Constitution's free exercise clause, and likewise, would not constitute an establishment or endorsement of religion, as would be necessary to be in violation of the first clause (even if it was claimed that it's an endorsement, there's various tests the Supreme Court applies to prove it). Even if it weren't a religious organization, it still might be a violation of the equal protection clause.
I mean, I just cited out of the Constitution. Instead of claiming I'm just wrong and ignorant and possibly trolling, you could tell me why. You know, with counter examples and stuff. If I'm gonna be the one to back up my opinions and you not so much, I'm pretty sure it's not me who's trolling here.
I don't know if you've caught this little fact yet, but the first amendment doesn't apply to private entities. The Constitution applies to the government exclusively. It's not enough that Congress not establish a religion, the Constitution also requires that the Congress shall "make no law... prohibiting the free exercise thereof". Following the incorporation of the first amendment, not allowing people to spend a voucher on a private school of their choice falls into the latter. It's the same reason public schools can't prohibit students from starting a club on the grounds it is religious.
Note that this only guarantees protection against weaknesses in one of the algorithms. If in any way you're able to determine when you've cracked the first layer, layering encryption one inside another could add as little as a single bit of security.
The writer of the episode, Morgan Gendel, gave his first speech specifically on it at Phoenix Comicon 2011, last year. It was absolutely fantastic hearing about some of his other ideas, how the idea was formed, changed, the little details that they put in, and he played about half the scenes through giving his commentary on top. For instance, they didn't know from the start Picard was going to be the affected character, and when they did, they didn't know how it would impact continuity and future episodes. Wicked awesome. I know there's a recording of it online somewhere...
I don't know why you're picking on FNC here, but socialism doesn't stop people from leaving their jobs. It discourages hiring and even prohibits firing, and there are plenty of regulations telling people where they can and cannot work.
Contracts allow for downsizing and layoffs due to budget cuts is entirely different. Even tenured professors can be laid off due to budget cuts. Getting fired from a job means you specifically violated your contract or simply aren't performing well, firing for which is something that is near impossible to get away with in many school districts (Case in point: Until recently, New York City's "rubber room", Reason's flow chart of the process or Google preview, see also, Washington, DC).
Our field of vision is actually about twice as wide as it is tall, our field of view is almost 180 degrees, but vertically only 100 degrees. The 2.40:1 aspect ratio is generally a matter of style, you can fit more actors into a scene that way, maybe it's easier to maximize screen area that way (most theaters have 2.40 screens and cover each side for 1.80:1 presentations). IMAX uses a 4:3 aspect ratio, but they can only get away with this because the theater is physically built very tall, and the top and bottom of the frame isn't considered "action safe".
The Apple Store should disprove this, though: At $4,032 per square foot per year, the NYC Apple Store is the most profitable retail store per square foot in the world, period.
But it does not logically follow that we must do something about it.
If you want to find out how much CO2 a car releases, you ask an engineer. If you want to find out how much the CO2 will impact weather patterns as a whole, you ask a climatologist. But if you want to find out how to balance the two, you can't ask either, you have to ask an economist: http://www.ted.com/talks/bjorn_lomborg_sets_global_priorities.html
Slashdot Mirror
Isn't this exactly what Extended Verification Certificates were supposed to be for?
Why should I trust some arbitrary party to vet the security of a website by the virtue it's accessible with a particular TLD? I get that TLS shouldn't require any third parties merely to establish a secure pipe, but if you *are* looking for a third party to vet other stuff, like your bank's privacy policy and whatnot, this is exactly what PKI *does* do well, at the protocol level.
TFA is actually one of the first coherent explanations of bufferbloat I've seen. Bufferbloat.net tells me they can fix my chaotic and laggy network performance, alright, fine. But... how?
The Internet is not getting slower. It is becoming laggier. Comeon people, learn the difference.
You must be new here. Slashdot.org was CmdrTaco's personal blog.
Um, the Constitution only applies to the government. The Constitution only says what the government is allowed to do, not what it must do on behalf of the people, or what the people must do. No amendment can change that. Private individuals cannot violate your "right to free speech" or your "right to privacy" save physically forcing you to (and even then, they're not violating the constitution, they're taking action that the government may lawfully intervene in to protect your rights). The "right to privacy" doesn't mean people can't ask for your passwords, it means they can't physically force you to give it up (you know, under threat of violence or whatnot). Facebook already asks for your passwords for other accounts, by the way!
But I use free software H.264 encoders and decoders already. There's been a lot of discussion about patents and FOSS software licenses, but that's all there's been. Free software and especially open source software is copyright thing and development methodology first, not a patent thing.
It's the same debate we had with MP3. Until the government wants to come around and say, "Your free software implementation is [somehow] illegal" the argument that H.264 is non-free -- or any piece of software, no matter how it's licensed -- is pure FUD. (And even if the state were to come around and say stop-you-can't-do-that, what would they do about it? We've already got the source code, because, you know, open source.)
If you want to say it's a bad idea because Mozilla would get sued into the ground, say that. But don't claim it's not non-free software because some third party wants to assert their power.
Digital cinemas already ship stereoscopic videos in a 48fps container, odd frames for the left eye, even frames for the right eye, but to be displayed at the same time (Or as close as possible, RealD stereoscopic theaters project 144 fps, and shows the left eye then right eye three times each per frame).
The Hobbit, by contrast, is going to (somehow) ship in a 96fps container.
It's also very hard to reduce the framerate: shooting in 48fps reduces your shutter time from 1/48s to 1/96s, reducing the (very necessary) motion blur, so it's not as simple as just removing every other frame.
If patents really define what makes software "free" or not-free, then no one would be able to chose to make a free H.264 codec.
My point is it's stupid to not support a codec just because of how it was invented. It's still free software.
There's plenty of open source encoders and decoders available. ffmpeg, x264 (produced for VLC) to start.
The notion that H.264 is not "free" isn't a result of a development methodology, it's because people think that somehow patents make it that way, despite the fact that the software authors have no choice in the matter.
It's officially "iPad, third generation", a.k.a. iPad 3.
From the post body, I'd be thinking the security problem is... OpenSSL still uses CVS.
I mean really, if there's code corruption or something malicious going on in the repository, you'd never know about it.
Subsidiarity? Do you mean subsidy? It's not just any money, it's a voucher. It's an option for an individual to go to a school, which the school can in turn redeem for funding. There's no endorsement or establishment of religion implied anywhere in the process. Government cannot prohibit money from going to a church or religious organization purely on the basis that it's a religious organization, that would be a violation of the Constitution's free exercise clause, and likewise, would not constitute an establishment or endorsement of religion, as would be necessary to be in violation of the first clause (even if it was claimed that it's an endorsement, there's various tests the Supreme Court applies to prove it). Even if it weren't a religious organization, it still might be a violation of the equal protection clause.
I mean, I just cited out of the Constitution. Instead of claiming I'm just wrong and ignorant and possibly trolling, you could tell me why. You know, with counter examples and stuff. If I'm gonna be the one to back up my opinions and you not so much, I'm pretty sure it's not me who's trolling here.
I don't know if you've caught this little fact yet, but the first amendment doesn't apply to private entities. The Constitution applies to the government exclusively. It's not enough that Congress not establish a religion, the Constitution also requires that the Congress shall "make no law... prohibiting the free exercise thereof". Following the incorporation of the first amendment, not allowing people to spend a voucher on a private school of their choice falls into the latter. It's the same reason public schools can't prohibit students from starting a club on the grounds it is religious.
Note that this only guarantees protection against weaknesses in one of the algorithms. If in any way you're able to determine when you've cracked the first layer, layering encryption one inside another could add as little as a single bit of security.
Because Bitcoin is completely irrelevant to news for nerds. Oh, wait, no it isn't.
The writer of the episode, Morgan Gendel, gave his first speech specifically on it at Phoenix Comicon 2011, last year. It was absolutely fantastic hearing about some of his other ideas, how the idea was formed, changed, the little details that they put in, and he played about half the scenes through giving his commentary on top. For instance, they didn't know from the start Picard was going to be the affected character, and when they did, they didn't know how it would impact continuity and future episodes. Wicked awesome. I know there's a recording of it online somewhere...
I read "GPS" to mean "GPS receiver". I think we know how the GPS works...
I don't know why you're picking on FNC here, but socialism doesn't stop people from leaving their jobs. It discourages hiring and even prohibits firing, and there are plenty of regulations telling people where they can and cannot work.
Contracts allow for downsizing and layoffs due to budget cuts is entirely different. Even tenured professors can be laid off due to budget cuts. Getting fired from a job means you specifically violated your contract or simply aren't performing well, firing for which is something that is near impossible to get away with in many school districts (Case in point: Until recently, New York City's "rubber room", Reason's flow chart of the process or Google preview, see also, Washington, DC).
Aspect ratio has less to do with good websites and more to do with the pure size: Good websites limit the width of a text column to 20-40 words or so.
Our field of vision is actually about twice as wide as it is tall, our field of view is almost 180 degrees, but vertically only 100 degrees. The 2.40:1 aspect ratio is generally a matter of style, you can fit more actors into a scene that way, maybe it's easier to maximize screen area that way (most theaters have 2.40 screens and cover each side for 1.80:1 presentations). IMAX uses a 4:3 aspect ratio, but they can only get away with this because the theater is physically built very tall, and the top and bottom of the frame isn't considered "action safe".
This is correct, I of all people should know better. The point still stands, though: Electronics stores are not incapable of being unsuccessful.
The Apple Store should disprove this, though: At $4,032 per square foot per year, the NYC Apple Store is the most profitable retail store per square foot in the world, period.
But it does not logically follow that we must do something about it.
If you want to find out how much CO2 a car releases, you ask an engineer. If you want to find out how much the CO2 will impact weather patterns as a whole, you ask a climatologist. But if you want to find out how to balance the two, you can't ask either, you have to ask an economist: http://www.ted.com/talks/bjorn_lomborg_sets_global_priorities.html
But TFA kinda just disproved your notion that Nintendo is investing zero into innovation... where have you been the last two E3s?
I've been perfectly happy with the systems and games they've been putting out, but maybe that's just me.