From perusing the Wikipedia articles on CDMA and TDMA, it seems to me that in CDMA the base station has to somehow agree with the cell phone what pseudorandom code it will use, and it seems to me that that communication doesn't use CDMA (chicken-and-egg). So I wouldn't say that CDMA is inherently harder to eavesdrop on than TDMA, it's just a different challenge (with CDMA you have to intercept the code at the start of the communications between the phone and a new base station, with TDMA you have to synchronize on the right timeslots).
Anyway, newer technology GSM networks (3G) often use some kind of hybrid CDMA/TDMA approach, it seems.
Google would immediately see that users from that particular ISP have a higher probability of ad clicking than users from a competing ISP with the same demographics (and averaged over some time period). Unless the difference caused by the bot clicking would be under the expected random fluctuations, which are a function of the variance of clicking habits between ISP's, it should be quite noticeable.
As far as I can see, the ISP cannot know this variance unless it conspires with other ISPs to collect the data, so it can't know how much clicking would go undetected. So IMHO, it is unlikely to start to do this.
Yeah, maybe the Slashdot opinions you complain about all the time are a backlash from the rapid (on a historical scale) legislative changes in copyright law since 1972 --- none of which having been enacted in response to a wide public demand.
Which kind makes your "we the people will change copyright law" argument kind of strange. It seems clear that "the people" aren't going to do anything about it unless the content industry pushes society too far. How far that is, I have no idea. For me, it's already much too far, which means I am not your average person in this regard.
> The RIAA has an ungodly amount of influence over the government, but you have even more.
The One and Only disagrees with you. And I think most of us agree with him.
What do you think more easily sways a politician, a few (or even thousands of) voters (as long as they are a very small portion of the electorate), or one lobbyist with a lot of economic backing?
Think about it.
Frankly, my impression is that currently (it may change in the future), even if hairyfeet had the economic clout to try to spread his "stop raping the public domain" message to the entire US electorate, only a very few, relatively, would understand and/or care. Sad.
I may be missing something here, but it seems to me that the research only concerns nuclear DNA. I would guess that at least some (many?) pairs of "identical" twins have differences in their mitochondrial DNA, also.
> a click fraud system that would be completely undetectable.
I can imagine a system which would be practically undetectable, but I don't think it would generate enough income to justify the risk involved. Either you have forgotten about differential statistical analysis or you know something I don't (perhaps you have real information about the variance in click rates between competing ISPs, something which I think only Google has?). I'm curious how this system would work...
> No, what I am saying is that the use of deprecated VML does > not cause OOXML files to be non-interoprabel
Well, so as far as I can tell, you're wrong. Please explain how a non-MS implementation of the OOXML standard will deal with those conforming files you were talking about when they contain VML blobs encoding proprietary Microsoft Ink data.
> you seem to have little understanding of the formats as ODF is > actually a spec that is filled with binary base64encoded > blobs elements.
You know, attacking me personally makes you look stupid, in that you are totally ignoring my whole point, that no matter how things are encoded in ODF, it contains no proprietary technology whatsoever and it is therefore a much better format for interoperability and long-term archival.
> Even though the VML behaviour in Office 2007 is not conforming it does not lead to OOXML files that are non conforming.
I agree totally. So this means that, by your own admission, standard conforming OOXML files are useless for intercompatibility and long-term archiving.
So what is this loser of a "standard" good for, then? Please explain?
What's even more amusing about your comment is that the non-conforming ODF files you complain about are actually much better for intercompatibility and long-term archiving, because they do not have obtuse proprietary binary tur.. er, blobs embedded in them. They just have the "wrong" kind of non-proprietary stuff in them.
In fact, even the non-standard (as in not-an-official-standard) previous file format of OOo was better than OOXML in this way, as long as you archived it along with all the sources of OOo.
The fallacy of your argument is that your definition of a vote "counting" is wrong. Not wrong in any intellectual or mathematical way, merely wrong in a philosophical or sociological way. It embodies the outlook that "what I do affects me and my surroundings only". Very "me generation". The proper outlook for this problem is the outlook that "what I do is an example to society, which if followed by the majority, would benefit all".
It's obviously clear, assuming that democracy is worthwhile, that everyone should vote even though every individual's vote has an extremely small probability of swaying the result of the election.
A growing (and dangerous) analogous phenomenon to not voting is not having your children vaccinated. The probability that any one child not being vaccinated will enable an epidemic is small.
> You may not modify, copy, distribute, transmit, display, perform, reproduce, publish, license, create derivative works > from, transfer, or sell any information, software, products or services obtained from the Services.
so the kids seem to be violating the site's terms of use if they share their ringtones (as the summary seems to say they are encouraged to do). Or at least if they share their ringtones outside of the site itself.
OTOH, I was surprised to see that the TOS explicitly mentions and links Creative Commons! This is at the end, though; I suppose they're relying on most kids who do bother to look at the TOS losing interest long before getting there. Or maybe MS is just not as paranoid as **AA, since for MS, the open-source cat has been out of the bag for a long, long time.
The point of the reply (which you missed) was that you should rather have typed in "frequency of suicide bombing".
And of all of those not so frequent suicide bombings, exactly one attack has had significant economic impact, and that was 9/11. The efficient way to have prevented 9/11's economic impact would have been to have had locked cockpit doors, not to fantasize that it is possible (and desirable) to make the world into a police state where no one has access to "jihadist materials" (the fantasy being the lack of access, of course).
Well, because the "standard" is so convoluted, it's not totally clear.
The OOXML standard states that use of (proprietary) VML is deprecated, but if you search the web for "VML"+"office 2007" you get lots of info on how most.docx files end up chock full of VML because of linkage with proprietary MS tech. See the "Application-defined" binary blobs for Microsoft Ink(TM) data?
This may or may not be OK with the standard, the big point is that there is no mode for Office 2007 which warns you when you save.docx using such deprecated or proprietary features (i.e., saving a file which is not interoperable with non-MS products using the OOXML standard). And you have to be some kind of genius to know what not to use.
Ever heard of the disadvantages of monoculture? (Yes, I know, it has significant advantages, also.)
One might also ask "do we really need another antibiotic"? Relax and think of it as pure research.
> for a novice it is daunting to figure out which of the 100+ distros to get.
As has been reiterated here hundreds of times: it's trivial for him if it's a pre-installed distro.
> With Microsoft or Apple it is easy... Get the latest, choose 64 bit or 32 bit and one of versions and you are set.
OK, I want the latest Apple OS --- for my Dell. Oops! And how does that novice choose between 64 and 32 bit by himself? I'll tell you how --- he asks the salesperson for help. The thing is, since no one makes extra money on Linux installs, there's no incentive (or at least no perceived incentive) for the salesperson to familiarize himself with the the Linux world so he can give the customer informed advice on distros.
Considering that carbon nanotubes are graphite-like structures first found in the soot of arc discharges, it seems reasonable that an organic nanofiber of the right composition might decompose into a nanotube if strongly heated under the right conditions (almost certainly, for a start, anaerobic ones).
> so, I tried to find something wrong with "Apple's treatment of Darwin."
There is nothing whatsoever wrong with Apple's treatment of Darwin. Darwin is based on BSD-licensed open-source code, so Apple has no obligation to release Darwin source code back to the public, nor any obligation to release the sources of the other additions they add to Darwin to make their OS's. And this is what the original poster was commenting on. He didn't say Apple was doing anything wrong.
Another post indicates to me that Apple, at least sometimes, releases the sources to Darwin out of the goodness of their hearts, or for other business reasons (so people can donate bug fixes, for example).
Either you (and the guy whose kid is locked in the car) lack imagination, have very screwed up priorities, or the car in question must have heavily armored windows, eh?
In cases of emergency, almost always you can find something in the immediate vicinity which can break a car window.
Assuming this is the case, the locksmith is just saving the guy money he would have spent on repairing a broken window in his car, so I see no problem in the locksmith demanding money for his services.
Now if the guy somehow locked his baby in his high-security safe, or even his heavily secured house, I can see your point. Although in the case of the safe, I think the authorities should probably investigate somewhat...
Ur, brain-please-read-comment-before-jerking-knee? Where on earth in that comment did I support infringing on RIAA's copyrights?
The strawman which you set up, upon which I was commenting, was "all non-RIAA musicians are homeless amateurs"? Your reply has very little to do with my comment, did you get confused and reply to the wrong comment or something? Ah, no, no such luck for you, I see you quoted me.
Let me analyze your reply vs. my comment:
Me:... growing, numbers of independent professional and semi-professional musicians... many of us, like me, are willing to pay? You:... the terms that you prefer, such as someone who is willing to give their music away for free.
Why does my stating that I am willing to pay indie artist (and yes, I prefer to pay them!) lead you to think I prefer getting music from someone who gives it away for free?
Me: The record labels haven't forgotten, they're running scared and wreaking havoc with our society... You:... doesn't give you the right to steal from someone whose doesn't have a business model that you like.
What does the havoc which the labels are wreaking with our society, namely (in part):
have to do with copyright infringement? Let this be perfectly clear: infringing on the copyrights of corporations doing Really Dreadful Things is still wrong!
Slashdot Mirror
From perusing the Wikipedia articles on CDMA and TDMA, it seems to me that in CDMA the base station has to somehow agree with the cell phone what pseudorandom code it will use, and it seems to me that that communication doesn't use CDMA (chicken-and-egg). So I wouldn't say that CDMA is inherently harder to eavesdrop on than TDMA, it's just a different challenge (with CDMA you have to intercept the code at the start of the communications between the phone and a new base station, with TDMA you have to synchronize on the right timeslots).
Anyway, newer technology GSM networks (3G) often use some kind of hybrid CDMA/TDMA approach, it seems.
Google would immediately see that users from that particular ISP have a higher probability of ad clicking than users from a competing ISP with the same demographics (and averaged over some time period). Unless the difference caused by the bot clicking would be under the expected random fluctuations, which are a function of the variance of clicking habits between ISP's, it should be quite noticeable.
As far as I can see, the ISP cannot know this variance unless it conspires with other ISPs to collect the data, so it can't know how much clicking would go undetected. So IMHO, it is unlikely to start to do this.
> society doesn't respond well to rapid change
Yeah, maybe the Slashdot opinions you complain about all the time are a backlash from the rapid (on a historical scale) legislative changes in copyright law since 1972 --- none of which having been enacted in response to a wide public demand.
Which kind makes your "we the people will change copyright law" argument kind of strange. It seems clear that "the people" aren't going to do anything about it unless the content industry pushes society too far. How far that is, I have no idea. For me, it's already much too far, which means I am not your average person in this regard.
> Actually ODF contains very propriety OLE linking
OK. This will be interesting. Please give us all the page references in the ODF standard where this is specified. Otherwise, cut the bullshit.
> Mental note: If I ever decide to have an affair, I'd better make sure I don't use a GSM phone.
If you were planning on using a CDMA phone instead, you should check what encryption is used. Most of the algorithms have been broken.
CMEA is extremely weak and was broken in the late '90s.
ORYX is also broken.
My understanding is that CMEA was "patched" up into SCMEA and ECMEA but I don't know if anyone has broken them yet.
The Wikipedia article on Mitochondrial DNA states:
... ...
> the mutation rate of animal mtDNA is higher than that of nuclear DNA
> Because mtDNA is not highly conserved and has a rapid mutation rate
Also, don't cells have a lot of mitochondria, so each sibling could inherit a different subset of the mitochondria of the mother?
> The RIAA has an ungodly amount of influence over the government, but you have even more.
The One and Only disagrees with you. And I think most of us agree with him.
What do you think more easily sways a politician, a few (or even thousands of) voters (as long as they are a very small portion of the electorate), or one lobbyist with a lot of economic backing?
Think about it.
Frankly, my impression is that currently (it may change in the future), even if hairyfeet had the economic clout to try to spread his "stop raping the public domain" message to the entire US electorate, only a very few, relatively, would understand and/or care. Sad.
Sorry about the typo in the comment title...
I may be missing something here, but it seems to me that the research only concerns nuclear DNA. I would guess that at least some (many?) pairs of "identical" twins have differences in their mitochondrial DNA, also.
> a click fraud system that would be completely undetectable.
I can imagine a system which would be practically undetectable, but I don't think it would generate enough income to justify the risk involved. Either you have forgotten about differential statistical analysis or you know something I don't (perhaps you have real information about the variance in click rates between competing ISPs, something which I think only Google has?). I'm curious how this system would work...
Sigh.
:-)
It's a feature, not a bug.
Well, at least you didn't say: Fix the system so not vaccinating my child will more likely cause an epidemic...
> No, what I am saying is that the use of deprecated VML does
> not cause OOXML files to be non-interoprabel
Well, so as far as I can tell, you're wrong. Please explain how a non-MS implementation of the OOXML standard will deal with those conforming files you were talking about when they contain VML blobs encoding proprietary Microsoft Ink data.
> you seem to have little understanding of the formats as ODF is
> actually a spec that is filled with binary base64encoded
> blobs elements.
You know, attacking me personally makes you look stupid, in that you are totally ignoring my whole point, that no matter how things are encoded in ODF, it contains no proprietary technology whatsoever and it is therefore a much better format for interoperability and long-term archival.
> Even though the VML behaviour in Office 2007 is not conforming it does not lead to OOXML files that are non conforming.
I agree totally. So this means that, by your own admission, standard conforming OOXML files are useless for intercompatibility and long-term archiving.
So what is this loser of a "standard" good for, then? Please explain?
What's even more amusing about your comment is that the non-conforming ODF files you complain about are actually much better for intercompatibility and long-term archiving, because they do not have obtuse proprietary binary tur.. er, blobs embedded in them. They just have the "wrong" kind of non-proprietary stuff in them.
In fact, even the non-standard (as in not-an-official-standard) previous file format of OOo was better than OOXML in this way, as long as you archived it along with all the sources of OOo.
The fallacy of your argument is that your definition of a vote "counting" is wrong. Not wrong in any intellectual or mathematical way, merely wrong in a philosophical or sociological way. It embodies the outlook that "what I do affects me and my surroundings only". Very "me generation". The proper outlook for this problem is the outlook that "what I do is an example to society, which if followed by the majority, would benefit all".
It's obviously clear, assuming that democracy is worthwhile, that everyone should vote even though every individual's vote has an extremely small probability of swaying the result of the election.
A growing (and dangerous) analogous phenomenon to not voting is not having your children vaccinated. The probability that any one child not being vaccinated will enable an epidemic is small.
One of the terms is:
> You may not modify, copy, distribute, transmit, display, perform, reproduce, publish, license, create derivative works
> from, transfer, or sell any information, software, products or services obtained from the Services.
so the kids seem to be violating the site's terms of use if they share their ringtones (as the summary seems to say they are encouraged to do). Or at least if they share their ringtones outside of the site itself.
OTOH, I was surprised to see that the TOS explicitly mentions and links Creative Commons! This is at the end, though; I suppose they're relying on most kids who do bother to look at the TOS losing interest long before getting there. Or maybe MS is just not as paranoid as **AA, since for MS, the open-source cat has been out of the bag for a long, long time.
(IANAL)
It's here already.
Malaysia car thieves steal finger
> Typing in "age of suicide bombers" into ...
The point of the reply (which you missed) was that you should rather have typed in "frequency of suicide bombing".
And of all of those not so frequent suicide bombings, exactly one attack has had significant economic impact, and that was 9/11. The efficient way to have prevented 9/11's economic impact would have been to have had locked cockpit doors, not to fantasize that it is possible (and desirable) to make the world into a police state where no one has access to "jihadist materials" (the fantasy being the lack of access, of course).
> Actually, from what I hear, the CRIA holds on to all of the money,
> "in trust" to pay for bribes to politicians to raise the levy.
You're naïveté incarnate, eh?
Well, because the "standard" is so convoluted, it's not totally clear.
.docx files end up chock full of VML because of linkage with proprietary MS tech. See the "Application-defined" binary blobs for Microsoft Ink(TM) data?
.docx using such deprecated or proprietary features (i.e., saving a file which is not interoperable with non-MS products using the OOXML standard). And you have to be some kind of genius to know what not to use.
.bin file format" might be interesting to you also.
The OOXML standard states that use of (proprietary) VML is deprecated, but if you search the web for "VML"+"office 2007" you get lots of info on how most
This may or may not be OK with the standard, the big point is that there is no mode for Office 2007 which warns you when you save
"Office 2007
In addition to the comment above, photos of security installations like army bases, TSA checkpoints, etc.
> Do we really need another OS?
... Get the latest, choose 64 bit or 32 bit and one of versions and you are set.
Ever heard of the disadvantages of monoculture? (Yes, I know, it has significant advantages, also.)
One might also ask "do we really need another antibiotic"? Relax and think of it as pure research.
> for a novice it is daunting to figure out which of the 100+ distros to get.
As has been reiterated here hundreds of times: it's trivial for him if it's a pre-installed distro.
> With Microsoft or Apple it is easy
OK, I want the latest Apple OS --- for my Dell. Oops! And how does that novice choose between 64 and 32 bit by himself? I'll tell you how --- he asks the salesperson for help. The thing is, since no one makes extra money on Linux installs, there's no incentive (or at least no perceived incentive) for the salesperson to familiarize himself with the the Linux world so he can give the customer informed advice on distros.
Considering that carbon nanotubes are graphite-like structures first found in the soot of arc discharges, it seems reasonable that an organic nanofiber of the right composition might decompose into a nanotube if strongly heated under the right conditions (almost certainly, for a start, anaerobic ones).
> so, I tried to find something wrong with "Apple's treatment of Darwin."
There is nothing whatsoever wrong with Apple's treatment of Darwin. Darwin is based on BSD-licensed open-source code, so Apple has no obligation to release Darwin source code back to the public, nor any obligation to release the sources of the other additions they add to Darwin to make their OS's. And this is what the original poster was commenting on. He didn't say Apple was doing anything wrong.
Another post indicates to me that Apple, at least sometimes, releases the sources to Darwin out of the goodness of their hearts, or for other business reasons (so people can donate bug fixes, for example).
Either you (and the guy whose kid is locked in the car) lack imagination, have very screwed up priorities, or the car in question must have heavily armored windows, eh?
In cases of emergency, almost always you can find something in the immediate vicinity which can break a car window.
Assuming this is the case, the locksmith is just saving the guy money he would have spent on repairing a broken window in his car, so I see no problem in the locksmith demanding money for his services.
Now if the guy somehow locked his baby in his high-security safe, or even his heavily secured house, I can see your point. Although in the case of the safe, I think the authorities should probably investigate somewhat...
> doesn't give you the right to steal
... growing, numbers of independent professional and semi-professional musicians ... many of us, like me, are willing to pay? ... the terms that you prefer, such as someone who is willing to give their music away for free.
... doesn't give you the right to steal from someone whose doesn't have a business model that you like.
Ur, brain-please-read-comment-before-jerking-knee? Where on earth in that comment did I support infringing on RIAA's copyrights?
The strawman which you set up, upon which I was commenting, was "all non-RIAA musicians are homeless amateurs"? Your reply has very little to do with my comment, did you get confused and reply to the wrong comment or something? Ah, no, no such luck for you, I see you quoted me.
Let me analyze your reply vs. my comment:
Me:
You:
Why does my stating that I am willing to pay indie artist (and yes, I prefer to pay them!) lead you to think I prefer getting music from someone who gives it away for free?
Me: The record labels haven't forgotten, they're running scared and wreaking havoc with our society...
You:
What does the havoc which the labels are wreaking with our society, namely (in part):
(1) Lobbying for extension of copyright terms to ridiculously long time periods
(2) Lobbying for ridiculously high copyright infringement penalties
(3) Lobbying for legislation which strips the current "fair use" provisions from copyright law
(4) Lobbying for legislation which makes it difficult-to-impossible to exercise "fair use" or other consumer rights on content which consumers buy
(5) Lobbying for legislation which restricts academic freedom of research into the security of all DRM algorithms
(6) Distributing music with dangerous malware which infects your computer without notice
(7) Lobbying for less money to go to artists without them getting a cut
(8) Illegally bribing terrestrial radio stations to play RIAA artists/songs
have to do with copyright infringement? Let this be perfectly clear: infringing on the copyrights of corporations doing Really Dreadful Things is still wrong!