Resisting fingerprinting is kind of pointless. If someone at the workplace wants your fingerprints, they could easily lift them from one of the hundreds of things you touch at the office every day.
It's not any harder than that. I don't see what you're raising a stink about.
WINE isn't included in the main distribution Ubuntu by default, and there's a good reason. It's still a beta. The current version in Ubuntu is 0.9.36. But anyone who wants to have WINE can add it easily in three, easy-to-understand clicks. Why should Dell do anything differently than the main distribution?
I agree. When I die, I want to be catapulted into a shark infested ocean or something else both spectacular and cheap. I have no desire to be a burden financially those I leave behind, and if they can get a cheap show out of it, all the better!
Somewhere, the hashes are stored. Find those and the solution presents itself.
There is no such thing as an uncrackable system. There are only hard to crack systems. The more valuable the data, the more persistent and eventually successful the attempts to crack into it will be. Eventually the cracking mechanisms will be automated.
But! If it's a publicly accessible resource like Google is, and it allows the government to spy on us, it would also allow us to spy on the government.
Unless a brilliant corporate takeover has recently occured, Anthony doesn't own myspace.com, and the page on myspace.com that is associated with the account "barackobama" isn't Anthony's, it belongs to myspace.com.
Myspace.com made an entirely reasonable decision to give that profile over to the person who is actually named Barack Obama, instead of the person who was trying to profit by way of simply grabbing the username first.
Except your analogy is flawed because the "motorcycle" in question, a myspace.com profile, never belonged to this guy in the first place.
Everything on myspace.com belongs to NewsCorp, and they say so very openly. Taking the 30 seconds to register a username on myspace doesn't give you ownership of the page that is generated with that username in it anymore than registering a username on slashdot.org gives you ownership of slashdot.org.
Myspace.com has an established history of taking usernames that are the same as celebrity names and simply handing them over to the celebrities. The issue is even in their TOS.
Obama's campaign didn't steal anything here. It belonged to myspace.com all along, and myspace.com did what they did in every other case where similar thing happened. They took the famous name and gave it to the person who is actually named that. This dude just made the mistake of believing that his little piece of myspace.com was actually his, when it never was to begin with.
He actually gave $10k to myspace to get more exposure for his page? Boy. That was stupid.
I understand that this dude's intentions were to help Obama, but you can't do someone a favor (especially one that they might not want in the first place such as this one) and then expect to get financially reimbursed for it.
The Obama campaign decided they didn't want this guy's help, so they asked myspace.com, who are the actual owners of the page, for permission to use it. Since it's myspace's page, they can do with it as they please, and they gave it to Obama's campaign.
I see no shenanigans here. I just see a goodhearted guy who overextended himself and then tried to cash in. He asked with a straight face for almost 50k for a myspace account -- the kind of account that the average 14 year old can set up in 5 minutes. It's not like he had any expertise that the campaign needed. He just happened to grab the account name "barackobama" before the Obama campaign got around to it. And then myspace decided to give that name to the actual campaign instead of the fan.
Everything here is above board, legit, and ethically great.
Just so you know, the moderator can't respond to your comment. In moderating a comment on a story, the moderator is stopped from being able to comment anywhere about that story. This is to stop people from unfairly manipulating a conversation by using the comment moderation system.
I see that all your quotes are from Earth First! and their kin. Comparing all environmentalists to Earth First! is like comparing all Christians to Jerry Falwell or comparing all Muslims to Osama Bin Laden. Your argument is highly misleading.
They're trying to sell books. I bet they have accurate information about those books. I can't exactly say the same for Wikipedia.
Your purity standards are a bit mislead. Wikipedia isn't better than other sources because it's not selling anything for three reasons. Firstly, because being in a field other than commerce doesn't make a source automatically good. Secondly, because Wikipedia is demonstrably unreliable. And thirdly, Wikipedia does sell its content to places like answers.com. Wikipedia is as tainted by commerce as anything else.
I think you're missing the point. How can you tell if someone's information on a given topic is accurate and worthwhile if you yourself know nothing about the topic? You trust their credentials. That's how.
Unless you're a medical doctor, you have no way of knowing if what your doctor tells you about your body is true or meaningful other than the fact that you trust him. The same goes for most other topics.
We can't all be experts on everything. For the things we aren't experts in, we trust credentials.
Christian groups seem to decry basically everything and everyone, and they seem to love dropping the "porn" bombshell left and right, but outside their little communities and fellow zealots, is there really any threat whatsoever from these people?
Apparently you've missed the last 10 years of governance in the US. This small minority holds a *lot* of sway in what goes on. They've passed laws restricting gambling, pornography, sex, and rights for homosexuals. Basically everything I like, they have a head start in stopping altogether.
To clarify one of your points, online gambling in the U.S. isn't actually illegal.
What *is* illegal is for a financial institution to do transactions with an online gambling institution.
The upshot of this is that you won't get arrested for sitting in your house and playing online poker, but people like the CEOs of companies like NETeller can get arrested. And apparently they have. Even though they were only in charge *before* this law was even passed.
With every passing day I am more terrified of my government.
It doesn't prove that people don't want DRM. It only proves that people prefer to buy CDs. Maybe people want the superior sound fidelity of CDs. Maybe they just like having something they can hold in their hands. Maybe people just are just more used to buying CDs and they don't adapt quickly to change. The conclusion made by the article is not supported by the facts.
You don't have to jump to any conclusions to see that it's a failure. It's upsetting to many because there are millions of people who now view Wikipedia as a reliable source for facts, when it's quite the opposite. A free society depends on correct and useful information, and Wikipedia offers the opposite. When we live in a society with the misinformed and ignorant, we all suffer, and Wikipedia is pushing us as a whole towards being more ignorant and misinformed.
I think your problem is a little less with the major bodies of science and more with the fact that you got your definitions from The Incredible Encyclopedia That Anyone Can Edit!
Slashdot Mirror
And your idea is borne out in reality. That's why companies like Wal-Mart and McDonalds totally fail to make a profit.
Resisting fingerprinting is kind of pointless. If someone at the workplace wants your fingerprints, they could easily lift them from one of the hundreds of things you touch at the office every day.
Your fingerprints are not a secret.
It's not any harder than that. I don't see what you're raising a stink about.
WINE isn't included in the main distribution Ubuntu by default, and there's a good reason. It's still a beta. The current version in Ubuntu is 0.9.36. But anyone who wants to have WINE can add it easily in three, easy-to-understand clicks. Why should Dell do anything differently than the main distribution?
I agree. When I die, I want to be catapulted into a shark infested ocean or something else both spectacular and cheap. I have no desire to be a burden financially those I leave behind, and if they can get a cheap show out of it, all the better!
I have not either. The point is, any system is crackable, and the more valuable the data is, the more quickly it will be cracked.
The answer in my opinion is, as always, if you don't want anyone to know your data, don't put it on the Internet.
Somewhere, the hashes are stored. Find those and the solution presents itself.
There is no such thing as an uncrackable system. There are only hard to crack systems. The more valuable the data, the more persistent and eventually successful the attempts to crack into it will be. Eventually the cracking mechanisms will be automated.
Money is pretty valuable.
Hardware tokens present software cyphers, and cyphers can be spoofed.
But! If it's a publicly accessible resource like Google is, and it allows the government to spy on us, it would also allow us to spy on the government.
Thanks for the info. So then it looks like we see who the real winner and culprit is here: Myspace!
Unless a brilliant corporate takeover has recently occured, Anthony doesn't own myspace.com, and the page on myspace.com that is associated with the account "barackobama" isn't Anthony's, it belongs to myspace.com. Myspace.com made an entirely reasonable decision to give that profile over to the person who is actually named Barack Obama, instead of the person who was trying to profit by way of simply grabbing the username first.
Except your analogy is flawed because the "motorcycle" in question, a myspace.com profile, never belonged to this guy in the first place.
Everything on myspace.com belongs to NewsCorp, and they say so very openly. Taking the 30 seconds to register a username on myspace doesn't give you ownership of the page that is generated with that username in it anymore than registering a username on slashdot.org gives you ownership of slashdot.org.
Myspace.com has an established history of taking usernames that are the same as celebrity names and simply handing them over to the celebrities. The issue is even in their TOS.
Obama's campaign didn't steal anything here. It belonged to myspace.com all along, and myspace.com did what they did in every other case where similar thing happened. They took the famous name and gave it to the person who is actually named that. This dude just made the mistake of believing that his little piece of myspace.com was actually his, when it never was to begin with.
He actually gave $10k to myspace to get more exposure for his page? Boy. That was stupid. I understand that this dude's intentions were to help Obama, but you can't do someone a favor (especially one that they might not want in the first place such as this one) and then expect to get financially reimbursed for it. The Obama campaign decided they didn't want this guy's help, so they asked myspace.com, who are the actual owners of the page, for permission to use it. Since it's myspace's page, they can do with it as they please, and they gave it to Obama's campaign. I see no shenanigans here. I just see a goodhearted guy who overextended himself and then tried to cash in. He asked with a straight face for almost 50k for a myspace account -- the kind of account that the average 14 year old can set up in 5 minutes. It's not like he had any expertise that the campaign needed. He just happened to grab the account name "barackobama" before the Obama campaign got around to it. And then myspace decided to give that name to the actual campaign instead of the fan. Everything here is above board, legit, and ethically great.
Just so you know, the moderator can't respond to your comment. In moderating a comment on a story, the moderator is stopped from being able to comment anywhere about that story. This is to stop people from unfairly manipulating a conversation by using the comment moderation system.
Ahem. Emulation layer? Apparently someone has missed that Wine Is Not an Emulator, and neither is Cedega.
I see that all your quotes are from Earth First! and their kin. Comparing all environmentalists to Earth First! is like comparing all Christians to Jerry Falwell or comparing all Muslims to Osama Bin Laden. Your argument is highly misleading.
What's wrong with marketing?
They're trying to sell books. I bet they have accurate information about those books. I can't exactly say the same for Wikipedia.
Your purity standards are a bit mislead. Wikipedia isn't better than other sources because it's not selling anything for three reasons. Firstly, because being in a field other than commerce doesn't make a source automatically good. Secondly, because Wikipedia is demonstrably unreliable. And thirdly, Wikipedia does sell its content to places like answers.com. Wikipedia is as tainted by commerce as anything else.
I think you're missing the point. How can you tell if someone's information on a given topic is accurate and worthwhile if you yourself know nothing about the topic? You trust their credentials. That's how.
Unless you're a medical doctor, you have no way of knowing if what your doctor tells you about your body is true or meaningful other than the fact that you trust him. The same goes for most other topics.
We can't all be experts on everything. For the things we aren't experts in, we trust credentials.
You mean someone might try to pretend to be something other than they actually are on the Internet?!
Christian groups seem to decry basically everything and everyone, and they seem to love dropping the "porn" bombshell left and right, but outside their little communities and fellow zealots, is there really any threat whatsoever from these people?
Apparently you've missed the last 10 years of governance in the US. This small minority holds a *lot* of sway in what goes on. They've passed laws restricting gambling, pornography, sex, and rights for homosexuals. Basically everything I like, they have a head start in stopping altogether.
To clarify one of your points, online gambling in the U.S. isn't actually illegal. What *is* illegal is for a financial institution to do transactions with an online gambling institution. The upshot of this is that you won't get arrested for sitting in your house and playing online poker, but people like the CEOs of companies like NETeller can get arrested. And apparently they have. Even though they were only in charge *before* this law was even passed. With every passing day I am more terrified of my government.
It doesn't prove that people don't want DRM. It only proves that people prefer to buy CDs. Maybe people want the superior sound fidelity of CDs. Maybe they just like having something they can hold in their hands. Maybe people just are just more used to buying CDs and they don't adapt quickly to change. The conclusion made by the article is not supported by the facts.
You don't have to jump to any conclusions to see that it's a failure. It's upsetting to many because there are millions of people who now view Wikipedia as a reliable source for facts, when it's quite the opposite. A free society depends on correct and useful information, and Wikipedia offers the opposite. When we live in a society with the misinformed and ignorant, we all suffer, and Wikipedia is pushing us as a whole towards being more ignorant and misinformed.
I think your problem is a little less with the major bodies of science and more with the fact that you got your definitions from The Incredible Encyclopedia That Anyone Can Edit!
Of course, your whole statement is based on the assumption that the universe operates according to axioms and rules.