But if you RTFA, you'll find out it's not a 99%/1% split, it's about 1.6% different, so with rounding, it should be 98%, 98.4%, or 98.5% (depending upon your rounding criteria). So, it's not 30M, it's 48M pairs difference.
An even better question, how does it respond to low blood sugar? Might need to design in a small capacitor or other storage mechanism, otherwise, it might crash when you blood glucose level does.
I'll second that recommendation. I've had several sets of Sennheiser headphones over the years, and they've all had excellent sound quality. They've always been excellent build quality too.
a simple alt and keypad entry almost completely disable dictionary attacks, and likely most pre-computed rainbow tables.
So does using a password/phrase that doesn't appear in a dictionary, and it doesn't require using an extended ASCII character that impairs compatibility. It gains you nothing, but it does cost you compatibility, and it's easier to notice/observe from a distance, so if you're being watched while entering your password, it may actually be less secure.
Yes, but attackers also rely upon observed behavior and use statistical approaches to brute force attacks. Knowing that people typically use mostly lower case, and that they may include one or two upper-case letters or numbers, you can construct the brute force attack to try those combinations first. The total search space is expanded, but the average search space statistically weighted by common user behavior.
For example, search for shortest passwords first, start search with all lower-case, then all lower with one upper or one digit, then all lower with 2 upper or digit, etc. at some point, start including commonly used symbols in the search, don't search uncommonly used symbols until all the more common stuff has been tried.
Using such techniques, it's possible to recover ~95+% of passwords while searching only a trivial percentage of the theoretical search space.
If your TC pass-phrase is short enough, or simple enough that using extended ASCII is necessary, then you have bigger issues. If it's sufficiently long and non-trivial and you still think using extended ASCII chars would enhance security, then you understand nothing about password security.
developers want to have for Windows desktop development the same great experience and access to the latest Visual Studio 2012 features
I translate it a bit differently: Despite our efforts to force Metro down everyone's throats, developers have told in no uncertain terms that they would prefer to continue developing for a traditional windows interface.
...take the color issue for example. whole of macos is gray, but its a beauty imagined by the greatest artists that ever walked on this humble planet.
No, it isn't. It's not all gray and hasn't been since the Mac II was introduced circa 1987. But more to you point, many users have complained about Apple changing the icons in iTunes from color to gray a couple versions back, and some enterprising third parties have created replacement icons to bring the color back precisely because it's NOT ok.
Some people have tried car analogies that don't work. Here's one that does.
Car manufacturers cover certain SAFETY related defects indefinitely because the govt requires it (or maybe because they believe it's cheaper to fix than be sued). However, they generally only cover manufacturing defects for the duration of the warranty. They don't "fix" the car when environments and specifications change. e.g. Cars designed for leaded fuel weren't retrofitted to use unleaded fuel (although high octane unleaded fuel would usually work), and the manufacturer isn't going to update your car because a tire manufacturer stops making tires in the specified size. These things are the responsibility of the buyer.
Same concept applies to most other products, why should software be any different?
It shouldn't. First, have a contract the specifies the requirements, and specifies a length of time during which you'll offer free support for bug fixes or failure to meet the specifications (even if they signed off on it since sometimes it's not practical to test all specifications on delivery). Changes to specifications, including compatibility with other software/systems, and bug fixes after that term are chargeable items. For chargeable items, the developer (company, not necessarily the individual programmer) may at his discretion choose not to charge, but it's entirely up to the developer. For trivial fixes, it's often more trouble to create and handle an invoice so you might choose not to charge, and that fosters good customer relations. For larger issues, you have to consider more factors, just like a vendor of any other type of product.
According the the linked articles (haven't read the actual suit/complaint), HP is claiming that Oracle committed to continued support at part of the settlement of HPs suit over Oracle hiring former HP CEO Mark Hurd who resigned in the midst of a scandal for which HP would have almost certainly fired him.
There is no suggestion that HP paid Oracle any amount to develop or continue support of their software on HP's Itanium systems. So, if you cut through all the distractions and boil it down the the basics, HP is claiming the Oracle owes $500M to $4B for hiring Mark Hurd, the very same CEO HP would probably have fired.
Livermore acknowledged under questioning that Intel demanded $488 million over five years to keep up production of Itanium in a waning market for the chip. She said that to her knowledge, Oracle was never told about the arrangement with Intel.
Which helps explain why she "doesn't like" people who refer to it as Itanic.
Wow, that's the second time this week I've backed Oracle's position in a lawsuit (the other is against Lodsys, not the Google case)
If they're suing Oracle's customers over a product the customer legitimately purchased from Oracle, then it's not a stretch to say that Oracle's reputation and customer relationship was damaged by Lodsys' suits. And, Oracle could potentially include anyone Lodsys sued over Oracle products as a co-plaintiff in this suit, thereby adding those legal costs and/or business interruption to the damages.
Lodsys stepped it it big time, they better hope they are correct, because you know Oracle won't give up.
Well, she can ASK for a takedown for her logo, but the site owner can claim fair use and have the site restored.
As I said, prior court cases have stated that copyright holders must consider fair use before issuing a takedown notice.
Lenz v. Universal Music Corp. was a 2007 case in which the US District Court for the Northern District of California ruled that copyright holders must consider fair use before issuing takedown notices for content posted on the internet.
The court held that copyright owners must consider fair use before issuing DMCA takedown notices. Thus, the court denied Universal's motion to dismiss Lenz's claims, finding Lenz's allegation that Universal indiscriminately removed Prince-related content plausible at an early stage in the case. Universal's concerns over the burden of considering fair use were deemed overstated, as mere good faith consideration of fair use, not necessarily an in-depth investigation, is sufficient defense against misrepresentation. The court also explained that liability for misrepresentation is crucial in preventing abuse of the DMCA as a means to stifle controversial speech.
On February 25, 2010, Judge Fogel issued a ruling rejecting several of Universal's affirmative defenses, including the defense that Lenz suffered no damages.
While that particular precedent only applies in that district, it's wording is quite strong and anyone ignoring it, even in other jurisdictions, does so at their own risk of civil liability for all loses caused by failure to make consideration.
However we should follow New York city and find ways to Ban the consumption of sugary sodas.
No, we shouldn't
Black Market sell products that you cannot legally get or get at the price close to what supply and demand can tolerate. It is a natural part of the economy.
No. Black markets exist only because you can't get it legally, or because you can get it cheaper on the black market. Make it legal and you kill most of the black market.
In New York the biggest black market item is unpasteurized milk.
Demonstrates the above perfectly. Black market didn't exist until they made it illegal.
The reason why something is illegal, is the combination of two things, 1. It is overall more dangerous then it will help.
Incorrect. Marijuana is less dangerous than tobacco. Many illegal drugs are safer than many prescription drugs.
2. People want it anyways. Prohibition didn't work because the Demand was much too high. The other drugs do not have as much of demand and are not part of our culture.
Demand for drugs is at an all-time high. Making it illegal hasn't decreased demand, it has increased demand (and costs). If it's something that people really want, making it illegal won't decrease demand, and it doesn't matter what percentage of the population wants it.
Before anyone runs off on a tangent of absurdity, no, that does not mean we should make everything legal. Just because there are psychopaths who enjoy killing people doesn't mean we should make murder legal. When an activity starts to infringe on the rights, life, liberty, etc of another, it must be curbed. But there is no reason to make something illegal if in normal use/practice it doesn't affect another's life, liberty, property, or rights.
I saw that Dish pays around 0.25/month per subscriber to Comedy Central. Yet somehow it's reasonable to ask 2 bucks for a single episode of a single show from that channel?
Multiply that by the number of subscribers (not actual views) and you'll find that CC is getting a hefty check. Even people who never watch CC are paying that monthly fee. Compare that to the actual revenue from episodes sold (and "sold" is a 1 time payment, not monthly or per view), and I think you'll find it makes sense. Also, episodes "sold" generally don't include commercials, so they're giving up that revenue stream too. Completely different business models.
Rental is yet another business model, one that's closer to the cable/satellite model.
Cable/satellite = all you can consume, but only as long as you maintain your subscription. When your subscription ends, all access ends with it. Pay the same whether you watch 1min or 500hrs per month. Per show rental = Pay per view (or a window of xx hours). Access ends after xx hours (or one view). Per show purchase = Pay more per show, but pay only once, and watch it whenever you choose, as many times as you choose.
Either way, the content creators and/or distributors will want to make ~ the same amount of revenue. So, you will pay more up-front for a purchase, but you don't have the recurring fees.
If I'm talking about a Big Mac, I can't use the picture of any sandwich, but I can use the picture of a Big Mac that somebody else took...
If you use a picture of a Big Mac that McDonald's holds the copyright to, you should be fine. If a third party owns the copyright, you're on shaky ground.
Precisely. Prohibition didn't work in the 1920's, it just made drinking more dangerous and added to the crime rate and violence. The "war on drugs" is simply prohibition revisited. Stop trying to make prohibition work, it will never work. Legalize it, tax it, and regulate it, just like we do with alcohol and tobacco.
There may be a few drugs that are too dangerous and need to be restricted, but if the majority of them are available, the demand for the most dangerous ones will drop dramatically, whether they're legal or not.
Obviously you must be a pedophile, anti-American, neo-Nazi, terrorist [did I miss any?]. How dare you mock "think of the children".
Everyone, for the sake of our children, please help root out this vile anonymous coward. We must not allow questioning of anything done for the children./sarcasm
Except that the logo in question is part of an image which she doesn't own, and doesn't have a license to use. Therefore, while she may have a copyright on the logo, she doesn't have a clear copyright to the full image she is claiming she owns in her DMCA takedown notice. She's got an encumbered claim to the item in question, and since you must attest that you're the rightful owner of the material in question, and therefore it's a questionable claim. It's not clear what her status is regarding that particular image.
All of which is secondary to the fact that under 17 USC 107, it's a clear case of fair use, which prior court rulings have stated must be considered before issuing a takedown notice or filing an infringement claim.
Slashdot Mirror
But if you RTFA, you'll find out it's not a 99%/1% split, it's about 1.6% different, so with rounding, it should be 98%, 98.4%, or 98.5% (depending upon your rounding criteria). So, it's not 30M, it's 48M pairs difference.
Well, some of us skipped Windows entirely until NT4. No Win3x or Win9x for me. Of course, I also skipped ME and Vista.
An even better question, how does it respond to low blood sugar? Might need to design in a small capacitor or other storage mechanism, otherwise, it might crash when you blood glucose level does.
I have PX100-II, and while I don't have an original PX100 to compare them to, I don't find mid and high to be muffled.
I'll second that recommendation. I've had several sets of Sennheiser headphones over the years, and they've all had excellent sound quality. They've always been excellent build quality too.
a simple alt and keypad entry almost completely disable dictionary attacks, and likely most pre-computed rainbow tables.
So does using a password/phrase that doesn't appear in a dictionary, and it doesn't require using an extended ASCII character that impairs compatibility. It gains you nothing, but it does cost you compatibility, and it's easier to notice/observe from a distance, so if you're being watched while entering your password, it may actually be less secure.
Layered composite materials. People who have been designing and building fault tolerant systems have been using such techniques for a very long time.
It may be interesting to determine that's what's at work in this instance, but it's not a new technology.
Yes, but attackers also rely upon observed behavior and use statistical approaches to brute force attacks. Knowing that people typically use mostly lower case, and that they may include one or two upper-case letters or numbers, you can construct the brute force attack to try those combinations first. The total search space is expanded, but the average search space statistically weighted by common user behavior.
For example, search for shortest passwords first, start search with all lower-case, then all lower with one upper or one digit, then all lower with 2 upper or digit, etc. at some point, start including commonly used symbols in the search, don't search uncommonly used symbols until all the more common stuff has been tried.
Using such techniques, it's possible to recover ~95+% of passwords while searching only a trivial percentage of the theoretical search space.
If your TC pass-phrase is short enough, or simple enough that using extended ASCII is necessary, then you have bigger issues. If it's sufficiently long and non-trivial and you still think using extended ASCII chars would enhance security, then you understand nothing about password security.
developers want to have for Windows desktop development the same great experience and access to the latest Visual Studio 2012 features
I translate it a bit differently: Despite our efforts to force Metro down everyone's throats, developers have told in no uncertain terms that they would prefer to continue developing for a traditional windows interface.
...take the color issue for example. whole of macos is gray, but its a beauty imagined by the greatest artists that ever walked on this humble planet.
No, it isn't. It's not all gray and hasn't been since the Mac II was introduced circa 1987. But more to you point, many users have complained about Apple changing the icons in iTunes from color to gray a couple versions back, and some enterprising third parties have created replacement icons to bring the color back precisely because it's NOT ok.
Some people have tried car analogies that don't work. Here's one that does.
Car manufacturers cover certain SAFETY related defects indefinitely because the govt requires it (or maybe because they believe it's cheaper to fix than be sued). However, they generally only cover manufacturing defects for the duration of the warranty. They don't "fix" the car when environments and specifications change. e.g. Cars designed for leaded fuel weren't retrofitted to use unleaded fuel (although high octane unleaded fuel would usually work), and the manufacturer isn't going to update your car because a tire manufacturer stops making tires in the specified size. These things are the responsibility of the buyer.
Same concept applies to most other products, why should software be any different?
It shouldn't. First, have a contract the specifies the requirements, and specifies a length of time during which you'll offer free support for bug fixes or failure to meet the specifications (even if they signed off on it since sometimes it's not practical to test all specifications on delivery). Changes to specifications, including compatibility with other software/systems, and bug fixes after that term are chargeable items. For chargeable items, the developer (company, not necessarily the individual programmer) may at his discretion choose not to charge, but it's entirely up to the developer. For trivial fixes, it's often more trouble to create and handle an invoice so you might choose not to charge, and that fosters good customer relations. For larger issues, you have to consider more factors, just like a vendor of any other type of product.
According the the linked articles (haven't read the actual suit/complaint), HP is claiming that Oracle committed to continued support at part of the settlement of HPs suit over Oracle hiring former HP CEO Mark Hurd who resigned in the midst of a scandal for which HP would have almost certainly fired him.
There is no suggestion that HP paid Oracle any amount to develop or continue support of their software on HP's Itanium systems. So, if you cut through all the distractions and boil it down the the basics, HP is claiming the Oracle owes $500M to $4B for hiring Mark Hurd, the very same CEO HP would probably have fired.
Livermore acknowledged under questioning that Intel demanded $488 million over five years to keep up production of Itanium in a waning market for the chip. She said that to her knowledge, Oracle was never told about the arrangement with Intel.
Which helps explain why she "doesn't like" people who refer to it as Itanic.
Wow, that's the second time this week I've backed Oracle's position in a lawsuit (the other is against Lodsys, not the Google case)
If they're suing Oracle's customers over a product the customer legitimately purchased from Oracle, then it's not a stretch to say that Oracle's reputation and customer relationship was damaged by Lodsys' suits. And, Oracle could potentially include anyone Lodsys sued over Oracle products as a co-plaintiff in this suit, thereby adding those legal costs and/or business interruption to the damages.
Lodsys stepped it it big time, they better hope they are correct, because you know Oracle won't give up.
Or maybe the Devil is just changing the bacteria.
After all, once you buy into a faith based model, you can explain anything.
Well, she can ASK for a takedown for her logo, but the site owner can claim fair use and have the site restored.
As I said, prior court cases have stated that copyright holders must consider fair use before issuing a takedown notice.
Lenz v. Universal Music Corp. was a 2007 case in which the US District Court for the Northern District of California ruled that copyright holders must consider fair use before issuing takedown notices for content posted on the internet.
The court held that copyright owners must consider fair use before issuing DMCA takedown notices. Thus, the court denied Universal's motion to dismiss Lenz's claims, finding Lenz's allegation that Universal indiscriminately removed Prince-related content plausible at an early stage in the case. Universal's concerns over the burden of considering fair use were deemed overstated, as mere good faith consideration of fair use, not necessarily an in-depth investigation, is sufficient defense against misrepresentation. The court also explained that liability for misrepresentation is crucial in preventing abuse of the DMCA as a means to stifle controversial speech.
On February 25, 2010, Judge Fogel issued a ruling rejecting several of Universal's affirmative defenses, including the defense that Lenz suffered no damages.
While that particular precedent only applies in that district, it's wording is quite strong and anyone ignoring it, even in other jurisdictions, does so at their own risk of civil liability for all loses caused by failure to make consideration.
MS has issued a security update KB2701704 that revokes some certificates, presumably the ones used in these attacks.
However we should follow New York city and find ways to Ban the consumption of sugary sodas.
No, we shouldn't
Black Market sell products that you cannot legally get or get at the price close to what supply and demand can tolerate. It is a natural part of the economy.
No. Black markets exist only because you can't get it legally, or because you can get it cheaper on the black market. Make it legal and you kill most of the black market.
In New York the biggest black market item is unpasteurized milk.
Demonstrates the above perfectly. Black market didn't exist until they made it illegal.
The reason why something is illegal, is the combination of two things, 1. It is overall more dangerous then it will help.
Incorrect. Marijuana is less dangerous than tobacco. Many illegal drugs are safer than many prescription drugs.
2. People want it anyways.
Prohibition didn't work because the Demand was much too high. The other drugs do not have as much of demand and are not part of our culture.
Demand for drugs is at an all-time high. Making it illegal hasn't decreased demand, it has increased demand (and costs). If it's something that people really want, making it illegal won't decrease demand, and it doesn't matter what percentage of the population wants it.
Before anyone runs off on a tangent of absurdity, no, that does not mean we should make everything legal. Just because there are psychopaths who enjoy killing people doesn't mean we should make murder legal. When an activity starts to infringe on the rights, life, liberty, etc of another, it must be curbed. But there is no reason to make something illegal if in normal use/practice it doesn't affect another's life, liberty, property, or rights.
No, but he should take Andy Grove's advice, "Only the Paranoid Survive". It's a book he should read.
I saw that Dish pays around 0.25/month per subscriber to Comedy Central. Yet somehow it's reasonable to ask 2 bucks for a single episode of a single show from that channel?
Multiply that by the number of subscribers (not actual views) and you'll find that CC is getting a hefty check. Even people who never watch CC are paying that monthly fee. Compare that to the actual revenue from episodes sold (and "sold" is a 1 time payment, not monthly or per view), and I think you'll find it makes sense. Also, episodes "sold" generally don't include commercials, so they're giving up that revenue stream too. Completely different business models.
Rental is yet another business model, one that's closer to the cable/satellite model.
Cable/satellite = all you can consume, but only as long as you maintain your subscription. When your subscription ends, all access ends with it. Pay the same whether you watch 1min or 500hrs per month.
Per show rental = Pay per view (or a window of xx hours). Access ends after xx hours (or one view).
Per show purchase = Pay more per show, but pay only once, and watch it whenever you choose, as many times as you choose.
Either way, the content creators and/or distributors will want to make ~ the same amount of revenue. So, you will pay more up-front for a purchase, but you don't have the recurring fees.
If I'm talking about a Big Mac, I can't use the picture of any sandwich, but I can use the picture of a Big Mac that somebody else took...
If you use a picture of a Big Mac that McDonald's holds the copyright to, you should be fine. If a third party owns the copyright, you're on shaky ground.
Precisely. Prohibition didn't work in the 1920's, it just made drinking more dangerous and added to the crime rate and violence. The "war on drugs" is simply prohibition revisited. Stop trying to make prohibition work, it will never work. Legalize it, tax it, and regulate it, just like we do with alcohol and tobacco.
There may be a few drugs that are too dangerous and need to be restricted, but if the majority of them are available, the demand for the most dangerous ones will drop dramatically, whether they're legal or not.
FB is successful because it's orders of magnitude better than MySpace ever was. Despite it's flaws, it's far better than it's would be competitors.
Obviously you must be a pedophile, anti-American, neo-Nazi, terrorist [did I miss any?]. How dare you mock "think of the children".
Everyone, for the sake of our children, please help root out this vile anonymous coward. We must not allow questioning of anything done for the children. /sarcasm
Except that the logo in question is part of an image which she doesn't own, and doesn't have a license to use. Therefore, while she may have a copyright on the logo, she doesn't have a clear copyright to the full image she is claiming she owns in her DMCA takedown notice. She's got an encumbered claim to the item in question, and since you must attest that you're the rightful owner of the material in question, and therefore it's a questionable claim. It's not clear what her status is regarding that particular image.
All of which is secondary to the fact that under 17 USC 107, it's a clear case of fair use, which prior court rulings have stated must be considered before issuing a takedown notice or filing an infringement claim.