I agree it's a horrible sentence - I only understood it after having read the article, and even then I had to read it about 3 times. People love to hate "grammar Nazis", but this sentence could have been so much easier to understand with a comma, and a couple small changes:
"YouTube have pretty much come down on the side of Flash, having major issues with features that the HTML5 tag does not, and may never, have."
I think that's what the person who wrote the summary was trying to say, but I can't be 100% certain.
If that's true, Hulu will just find dramatically fewer users using the service. When Hulu first launched, they had a lot of great stuff worth watching. Over the last year and a half, the content worth watching (at least for me, I suppose it all depends on your tastes) has dropped to almost nothing.
I would *maybe* consider paying 9.99 for access to the entire back catalog of shows from every series they carry, if it was ad-free, but I'm not sure that 9.99 for just the current season is worth it. Also, some shows on Hulu, I've noticed lately, don't show up until a week after they air - it used to be the next day. I sure wouldn't pay 9.99 to watch shows a week late.
I think I'd also want to see more programming from cable-only channels if I'm paying a premium. Right now, they have a couple things from SyFy, but I'd like to be able to get some of the programming from other cable networks, if I'm paying for TV anyhow. I could maybe see that being more expensive than 9.99/mo, though, seeing as Cable subscribers typically pay $30-$80/mo. But, if it gets as expensive as Cable, I might as well just get Cable, right?
This is different because it could have simply been avoided in the first place. Yes, we infer things from context. The problem is, the context of discussion for devices by Apple, and networking gear from Cisco may have some overlap, for example if you are trying to use an iPad on a wireless network comprised of Cisco gear. Yes, you can differentiate them by being explicit, "The Cisco IOS needs to be updated to the latest version", "The network settings in Apple iOS are not correct, and so you cannot get on the network".
But wouldn't it be simpler to just name it something else?
Anyhow, who's freaking out? I simply pointed something out.
I hope this person is never planning on taking any math or science courses at a University (perhaps he already has all the education he'll ever get). I wonder how a professor or academic review committee would view an armful of equations tattooed on a student? They generally frown upon writing formulae on your skin with an ink pen. . .
Oh, one other point - a large part of why we teach them in High School and basic undergraduate physics classes is that they don't require a lot of math beyond algebra and trig, and maybe a little calculus (some knowledge of integration and differentiation can still be useful even with Newton's Laws), but when you start looking at the more accurate models of relativity and things, it starts to take knowledge of much more advanced math, which High School students and undergrads(well, most of them anyhow) won't know or understand.
I wish I could find the URL now, but I remember reading once about relativity (don't remember now if it was special or general), the author showing how some of the classical mechanics formulas are basically the first few terms of Taylor Polynomials which represented the values given by relativity, so basically, as you said, they are accurate when sufficiently near 0, but the farther you move away from 0, the more the error accumulates without the 'missing' terms. Really wish I could find it now.
Well, you see, the modder had to preserve Slashdot CRM ( Correctness, Relevance, Modding) Invariance which states that Comment Correctness, Comment Relevance, and Comment Modding, when assigned a boolean value (e.g if the Comment is factually correct, it is assigned the value of 1, else 0) of 1 or 0, then multiplied together, must never be 1. So, since we had a correct, relevant comment, the modding must be incorrect to preserve the Invariance.
The *correct* approach is to setup the arrest so that you don't arrest the guy and sieze the computer while the encrypted volume is not mounted. Instead, you keep him under surveillance, and when he has the truecrypt volume mounted, you storm in and arrest him before he can unmount it, then copy all the data from the already mounted volume to a thumb drive, or external hard drive.
Or. . .
Secretly install a keylogger somewhere on his system to log the password for the truecrypt volume, and DON'T arrest the guy till you've got the passwords.
Or. . .
Secretly install software on his computer which, when any volume is mounted, starts to transfer the files over the Internet to a police file server.
Or. . .
I've heard of research (seems like it was posted to/. a few years ago) that indicated it would be possible to pickup keystrokes made on a computer which was plugged into a wall power socket, by like tapping the lines outside the residence or something.
Anyhow, my point is, if the police are careful about how they go about the arrest and siezure, they might not have to 'defeat' the encryption. The problem with encryption is at some point, you have to enter the password and decrypt the data. Either the password can be captured, or the decrypted data can be.
You seem to miss my point. In order for any particular country's courts to claim jurisdiction for an alleged crime, the crime has to happen within the borders of that country (or, maybe [I'm not sure on this point] in something like an embassy or consulate which is considered part of the sovereign territory of the country, even though outside of its geographic domain).
Unless Pakistan wants to try to convince everyone that they have Jurisdiction over the whole world, they can't really charge you for 'Blasphemy' if you refuse to serve content in their country, and the server is not located in their country, then no crime can be committed in their country.
Although, the problem is, it might only take one missed IP address (like say someone on a computer in an Embassy in France, where your geoIP database decides the IP is not in Pakistan, but the computer is within their legal jurisdiction [maybe, again, not sure], for them to claim jurisdiction again.
Personally, I'd not worry about it, and just make sure to never visit Pakistan, except there's always the risk that maybe someday you are travelling internationally, with no intention to go to Pakistan, but something happens like your airplane getting re-routed to a Pakistani airport, or an airport in some country with an extradition treaty with Pakistan.
So, you either have to make sure that no one can ever post something someone in Pakistan might construe as blasphemy, or never ever ever leave your home country (well, maybe flying between U.S. and Europe, for example, might be safe, but anywhere near Asia and you risk getting dropped into Pakistan against your will.
Yeah, I suppose that's true, since copyleft is really copyright with 'non-traditional' terms of usage. I suppose they could argue that while Congress can't stop you from giving away your work, Congress is free to change copyright law, so that, for example, you can't require people to use the same license on derivative works, or something like that.
That probably wouldn't run afoul of the Constitution because A) you are still free to give away your work with no copyright protection, and B) Congress is allowed, by the Constitution, to create copyright laws, but the Constitution provides no mandates to Congress on how copyright must work.
Man, don't you love letters like that? They are asking for money, but they don't list a single, specific point of how the law needs to change, or what specific philosophical claims for which they are in disagreement with EFF, CC, et. al.
They are asking you to write a check, but they haven't explained, AT ALL, what the money is going to be used for. They use very vague and nebulous statements that add up to nothing. What do they actually want to do?
Copyright is all fine and dandy, but if Congress tried to actually make it illegal to *give away* your own recordings, I believe that would pretty clearly run afoul of, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
Congratulations, ASCAP: you are in the glorious position of educating Congress and the public on how awful and evil the 1st amendment is.
If you're running a website, is there a way to detect visitors who are (probably) in Pakistan (like, is there a specific block of IPs that is assigned to Pakistan), to redirect them to a page explaining that you'd rather not risk getting a death sentence from Pakistan, so you are not willing to serve content in that jurisdiction?
I say everyone should just create an Internet Embargo against Pakistan if they're going to be like that. Cut em off.
As an end-user, is there some way for me to tell if a domain has been authenticated along the whole chain by DNSSEC? Do any of the web-browsers, for example, include DNSSEC support, to show that a domain has been verified? Or, is DNSSEC only a server-to-server tech, but doesn't extend to end users? If it does extend to the end-user computer, can I use DNSSEC on an un-trusted network, to connect securely to my ISP's DNS Server (or google dns, or OpenDNS, etc), to make sure I'm getting back the correct DNS info (I suppose the 'real' answer for such a situation, at least currently, is a VPN, although some organizations [like where I work] have VPN's that only tunnel traffic to the secured network, and won't tunnel any other traffic, so such a VPN doesn't protect you when visiting any other sites/hosts on the internet).
I think it would be nice, if I don't have access to a real VPN connection, to at least be able to make sure that DNS is secured and trustworthy (although that, of course, doesn't guarantee that there aren't any man-in-the-middle attacks).
I work near Cincinnati, OH, and we felt it in our office building.
But, better than reporting at/., go report if you felt it at usgs.gov. They have a "Did you feel it?" feature which lets you submit info about it, and then it maps the info, and creates lists of responses collated by zipcode, etc, and allows the usgs to create a public record of it that anyone (not just/.ers) can check out.
"This seems to be a trend that started with 'zero emissions' cars that had the electricity magically appear."
In that case, I think it's legitimate. Why? Because it is at least theoretically possible to generate electricity in ways that generate no emissions. I think we'll get there someday (maybe some mix of fission, fusion, wind, solar, geo, hydro, etc).
When solving a problem, you have to solve it one piece at a time. An electric car really does produce zero emissions (that is, the car itself). That's step one. Now, we need zero emissions electricity. If you have zero emissions electricity, and a "zero emissions" car, you have (almost) solved the problem (the last set of problems being to make sure that no emissions are released in the manufacture or building of the power plants, extraction/refining of fission or fusion fuel, no emissions in the manufacture of the materials that the cars and power generators are made from, construction/transport/installation of solar panels, wind turbines, powerlines, etc.
But, at least we have one component (the car itself, in operation) which doesn't cause any emissions.
As a taxpayer, I think I'd be somewhat happy if they managed to generate some residual revenue to re-imburse my tax dollars spent on this. Why should the share holders of G.E. (or whoever ends up making these units) be the only ones to see any profit off this, if it's publically funded?
I *suppose* that there could be a counter argument that, since the government gets to collect sales (although that's usually local/state governments - I don't think there's any federal sales tax in the U.S.) and income/profit taxes, that the government will be making some revenue off the sales of such units, anyhow. However, the problem with that is that companies are great at finding ways to not pay nearly as much tax as their sales would indicate they should be. A patent makes the revenue much more direct and mandatory. Lost money this year? Made large contributions to non-profits? Don't care - you still gotta pay your royalty
I'm not sure I've actually heard of any large-scale commercial recycling efforts (other than, I think, Toyota recycles the batteries for their hybrids), but shouldn't lithium (from batteries, electronics, and evaporative air coolers) be recylable? It's not like the lithium is destroyed by use - it simply ends up in different compounds, right?
There are many reasons I'm a *former* Verizon customer. I got fed up with them. Granted, I don't completely rule out the possibility that, if Verizon broke any laws (which isn't really entirely clear-cut to me here), the government should enforce the laws, but this looks like it is basically a customer service issue. Customers should learn how egregious Verizon is, and stop doing business with them. I did, and I'm quite happy.
Verizon is NOT a monopoly. There are other cell phone providers. Do business with one who will treat you better. I'm pretty happy with T-Mobile, myself, but even if you don't like T-Mo, there's about 6-8 other options I can think of (and in some markets, perhaps more options).
I think, too often, people here of a corporation behaving badly, and it seems like there first reaction is "there oughta be a law", when my first reaction, if there are any other competitors, is to just stop doing business with a company who mis-treats me. It seems to be quite effective, most of the time.
The only time I ever think about Verizon anymore is when I see an article or news story on the Internet/TV/Radio, and I'm quite happy with that situation.
Free yourself from Verizon. Take control of your own life, don't look to the government to do it for you, because the government is basically controlled by those with money (like Verizon). If enough people just stop doing business with Verizon, Verizon will either change, or go out of business.
Or, you could, you know, just NOT BUY such a STUPID printer. This is so not going to be a problem for me, since I won't buy the printer, so I don't give a rip. If you decide to buy this printer, I guess you've chosen how you'll make HP richer.
Slashdot Mirror
I agree it's a horrible sentence - I only understood it after having read the article, and even then I had to read it about 3 times. People love to hate "grammar Nazis", but this sentence could have been so much easier to understand with a comma, and a couple small changes:
"YouTube have pretty much come down on the side of Flash, having major issues with features that the HTML5 tag does not, and may never, have."
I think that's what the person who wrote the summary was trying to say, but I can't be 100% certain.
If that's true, Hulu will just find dramatically fewer users using the service. When Hulu first launched, they had a lot of great stuff worth watching. Over the last year and a half, the content worth watching (at least for me, I suppose it all depends on your tastes) has dropped to almost nothing.
I would *maybe* consider paying 9.99 for access to the entire back catalog of shows from every series they carry, if it was ad-free, but I'm not sure that 9.99 for just the current season is worth it. Also, some shows on Hulu, I've noticed lately, don't show up until a week after they air - it used to be the next day. I sure wouldn't pay 9.99 to watch shows a week late.
I think I'd also want to see more programming from cable-only channels if I'm paying a premium. Right now, they have a couple things from SyFy, but I'd like to be able to get some of the programming from other cable networks, if I'm paying for TV anyhow. I could maybe see that being more expensive than 9.99/mo, though, seeing as Cable subscribers typically pay $30-$80/mo. But, if it gets as expensive as Cable, I might as well just get Cable, right?
This is different because it could have simply been avoided in the first place. Yes, we infer things from context. The problem is, the context of discussion for devices by Apple, and networking gear from Cisco may have some overlap, for example if you are trying to use an iPad on a wireless network comprised of Cisco gear. Yes, you can differentiate them by being explicit, "The Cisco IOS needs to be updated to the latest version", "The network settings in Apple iOS are not correct, and so you cannot get on the network".
But wouldn't it be simpler to just name it something else?
Anyhow, who's freaking out? I simply pointed something out.
They Pythagorean Theorem is just the Law of Cosines for a restricted set, so why not go with the more general solution?
With trademarks, it absolutely matters. However, others have provided references that Apple licensed the mark from Cisco, so I guess that's that.
I call name collision. Please refer to the iPhone/iPad operating system as something other than IOS because Cisco used it first.
I hope this person is never planning on taking any math or science courses at a University (perhaps he already has all the education he'll ever get). I wonder how a professor or academic review committee would view an armful of equations tattooed on a student? They generally frown upon writing formulae on your skin with an ink pen. . .
Oh, one other point - a large part of why we teach them in High School and basic undergraduate physics classes is that they don't require a lot of math beyond algebra and trig, and maybe a little calculus (some knowledge of integration and differentiation can still be useful even with Newton's Laws), but when you start looking at the more accurate models of relativity and things, it starts to take knowledge of much more advanced math, which High School students and undergrads(well, most of them anyhow) won't know or understand.
Found a pdf of calculus notes on northwestern.edu which shows what I was talking about.
I wish I could find the URL now, but I remember reading once about relativity (don't remember now if it was special or general), the author showing how some of the classical mechanics formulas are basically the first few terms of Taylor Polynomials which represented the values given by relativity, so basically, as you said, they are accurate when sufficiently near 0, but the farther you move away from 0, the more the error accumulates without the 'missing' terms. Really wish I could find it now.
Well, you see, the modder had to preserve Slashdot CRM ( Correctness, Relevance, Modding) Invariance which states that Comment Correctness, Comment Relevance, and Comment Modding, when assigned a boolean value (e.g if the Comment is factually correct, it is assigned the value of 1, else 0) of 1 or 0, then multiplied together, must never be 1. So, since we had a correct, relevant comment, the modding must be incorrect to preserve the Invariance.
The *correct* approach is to setup the arrest so that you don't arrest the guy and sieze the computer while the encrypted volume is not mounted. Instead, you keep him under surveillance, and when he has the truecrypt volume mounted, you storm in and arrest him before he can unmount it, then copy all the data from the already mounted volume to a thumb drive, or external hard drive.
Or. . .
Secretly install a keylogger somewhere on his system to log the password for the truecrypt volume, and DON'T arrest the guy till you've got the passwords.
Or. . .
Secretly install software on his computer which, when any volume is mounted, starts to transfer the files over the Internet to a police file server.
Or. . .
I've heard of research (seems like it was posted to /. a few years ago) that indicated it would be possible to pickup keystrokes made on a computer which was plugged into a wall power socket, by like tapping the lines outside the residence or something.
Anyhow, my point is, if the police are careful about how they go about the arrest and siezure, they might not have to 'defeat' the encryption. The problem with encryption is at some point, you have to enter the password and decrypt the data. Either the password can be captured, or the decrypted data can be.
You seem to miss my point. In order for any particular country's courts to claim jurisdiction for an alleged crime, the crime has to happen within the borders of that country (or, maybe [I'm not sure on this point] in something like an embassy or consulate which is considered part of the sovereign territory of the country, even though outside of its geographic domain).
Unless Pakistan wants to try to convince everyone that they have Jurisdiction over the whole world, they can't really charge you for 'Blasphemy' if you refuse to serve content in their country, and the server is not located in their country, then no crime can be committed in their country.
Although, the problem is, it might only take one missed IP address (like say someone on a computer in an Embassy in France, where your geoIP database decides the IP is not in Pakistan, but the computer is within their legal jurisdiction [maybe, again, not sure], for them to claim jurisdiction again.
Personally, I'd not worry about it, and just make sure to never visit Pakistan, except there's always the risk that maybe someday you are travelling internationally, with no intention to go to Pakistan, but something happens like your airplane getting re-routed to a Pakistani airport, or an airport in some country with an extradition treaty with Pakistan.
So, you either have to make sure that no one can ever post something someone in Pakistan might construe as blasphemy, or never ever ever leave your home country (well, maybe flying between U.S. and Europe, for example, might be safe, but anywhere near Asia and you risk getting dropped into Pakistan against your will.
Yeah, I suppose that's true, since copyleft is really copyright with 'non-traditional' terms of usage. I suppose they could argue that while Congress can't stop you from giving away your work, Congress is free to change copyright law, so that, for example, you can't require people to use the same license on derivative works, or something like that.
That probably wouldn't run afoul of the Constitution because A) you are still free to give away your work with no copyright protection, and B) Congress is allowed, by the Constitution, to create copyright laws, but the Constitution provides no mandates to Congress on how copyright must work.
Man, don't you love letters like that? They are asking for money, but they don't list a single, specific point of how the law needs to change, or what specific philosophical claims for which they are in disagreement with EFF, CC, et. al.
They are asking you to write a check, but they haven't explained, AT ALL, what the money is going to be used for. They use very vague and nebulous statements that add up to nothing. What do they actually want to do?
Copyright is all fine and dandy, but if Congress tried to actually make it illegal to *give away* your own recordings, I believe that would pretty clearly run afoul of, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
Congratulations, ASCAP: you are in the glorious position of educating Congress and the public on how awful and evil the 1st amendment is.
If you're running a website, is there a way to detect visitors who are (probably) in Pakistan (like, is there a specific block of IPs that is assigned to Pakistan), to redirect them to a page explaining that you'd rather not risk getting a death sentence from Pakistan, so you are not willing to serve content in that jurisdiction?
I say everyone should just create an Internet Embargo against Pakistan if they're going to be like that. Cut em off.
He's not making a bomb, he's making a fusion device. A very lower power, low-yield fusion device.
It can create some neutron radiation, but the device is so low power that the radiation is rather negligible.
As an end-user, is there some way for me to tell if a domain has been authenticated along the whole chain by DNSSEC? Do any of the web-browsers, for example, include DNSSEC support, to show that a domain has been verified? Or, is DNSSEC only a server-to-server tech, but doesn't extend to end users? If it does extend to the end-user computer, can I use DNSSEC on an un-trusted network, to connect securely to my ISP's DNS Server (or google dns, or OpenDNS, etc), to make sure I'm getting back the correct DNS info (I suppose the 'real' answer for such a situation, at least currently, is a VPN, although some organizations [like where I work] have VPN's that only tunnel traffic to the secured network, and won't tunnel any other traffic, so such a VPN doesn't protect you when visiting any other sites/hosts on the internet).
I think it would be nice, if I don't have access to a real VPN connection, to at least be able to make sure that DNS is secured and trustworthy (although that, of course, doesn't guarantee that there aren't any man-in-the-middle attacks).
I work near Cincinnati, OH, and we felt it in our office building.
But, better than reporting at /., go report if you felt it at usgs.gov. They have a "Did you feel it?" feature which lets you submit info about it, and then it maps the info, and creates lists of responses collated by zipcode, etc, and allows the usgs to create a public record of it that anyone (not just /.ers) can check out.
"This seems to be a trend that started with 'zero emissions' cars that had the electricity magically appear."
In that case, I think it's legitimate. Why? Because it is at least theoretically possible to generate electricity in ways that generate no emissions. I think we'll get there someday (maybe some mix of fission, fusion, wind, solar, geo, hydro, etc).
When solving a problem, you have to solve it one piece at a time. An electric car really does produce zero emissions (that is, the car itself). That's step one. Now, we need zero emissions electricity. If you have zero emissions electricity, and a "zero emissions" car, you have (almost) solved the problem (the last set of problems being to make sure that no emissions are released in the manufacture or building of the power plants, extraction/refining of fission or fusion fuel, no emissions in the manufacture of the materials that the cars and power generators are made from, construction/transport/installation of solar panels, wind turbines, powerlines, etc.
But, at least we have one component (the car itself, in operation) which doesn't cause any emissions.
As a taxpayer, I think I'd be somewhat happy if they managed to generate some residual revenue to re-imburse my tax dollars spent on this. Why should the share holders of G.E. (or whoever ends up making these units) be the only ones to see any profit off this, if it's publically funded?
I *suppose* that there could be a counter argument that, since the government gets to collect sales (although that's usually local/state governments - I don't think there's any federal sales tax in the U.S.) and income/profit taxes, that the government will be making some revenue off the sales of such units, anyhow. However, the problem with that is that companies are great at finding ways to not pay nearly as much tax as their sales would indicate they should be. A patent makes the revenue much more direct and mandatory. Lost money this year? Made large contributions to non-profits? Don't care - you still gotta pay your royalty
I'm not sure I've actually heard of any large-scale commercial recycling efforts (other than, I think, Toyota recycles the batteries for their hybrids), but shouldn't lithium (from batteries, electronics, and evaporative air coolers) be recylable? It's not like the lithium is destroyed by use - it simply ends up in different compounds, right?
Why not just recycle it?
There are many reasons I'm a *former* Verizon customer. I got fed up with them. Granted, I don't completely rule out the possibility that, if Verizon broke any laws (which isn't really entirely clear-cut to me here), the government should enforce the laws, but this looks like it is basically a customer service issue. Customers should learn how egregious Verizon is, and stop doing business with them. I did, and I'm quite happy.
Verizon is NOT a monopoly. There are other cell phone providers. Do business with one who will treat you better. I'm pretty happy with T-Mobile, myself, but even if you don't like T-Mo, there's about 6-8 other options I can think of (and in some markets, perhaps more options).
I think, too often, people here of a corporation behaving badly, and it seems like there first reaction is "there oughta be a law", when my first reaction, if there are any other competitors, is to just stop doing business with a company who mis-treats me. It seems to be quite effective, most of the time.
The only time I ever think about Verizon anymore is when I see an article or news story on the Internet/TV/Radio, and I'm quite happy with that situation.
Free yourself from Verizon. Take control of your own life, don't look to the government to do it for you, because the government is basically controlled by those with money (like Verizon). If enough people just stop doing business with Verizon, Verizon will either change, or go out of business.
Or, you could, you know, just NOT BUY such a STUPID printer. This is so not going to be a problem for me, since I won't buy the printer, so I don't give a rip. If you decide to buy this printer, I guess you've chosen how you'll make HP richer.