Citation necessary on that. The reality is that a game is going to be pirated whether the developer does something about it or not, but adding many tens of thousands of dollars. That's a huge number of games one would have to sell just to break even. Additionally there's been at least one study out that suggests pretty strongly that DRM itself causes a goodly chunk of piracy.
In other words, they'd probably have better luck if they weren't besmirching their own image by cracking down on people that are trying to use their legitimately paid for copy. I for one refuse to buy from Steam or any company that expects to lock down all of my content based upon what they feel like doing without recourse. Addtionally, as much as I'd like to play Spore, I haven't bought a copy because I absolutely refuse to buy software that can be deactivated after a few installs just because the company is afraid of piracy.
But that's who this is geared towards. The people that are carrying around data that is incredibly sensitive. Why these people are carrying it around on a thumb drive is a much bigger question, really, if you don't want it cracked, you shouldn't be carrying it on a portable easily lost/stolen medium.
Isn't this the sort of thing that ZFS is for? Admittedly, that would add a lot of cost to the array, but it should provide substantial safety.
At that point, you'd probably be paying somewhere in the neighborhood of 2-3k or a bit more depending upon specifics, but what good is 10TB of data if it's not properly set up. Of course, that doesn't include the cost of backing it up either, but hey.
And that's where the legislature ought to be stepping in. Put a tax, fine or require companies to pay for the damage that they do by not properly securing their equipment. Or better still fine the crap out of companies that get caught advertising via spam.
There's far, far more wrong with FTP than would be fixed by proper authentication regimes, it wasn't ever meant to be used in a networking environment that doesn't allow for direct connections between machines without hackery.
Re:These aren't average users, are they?
on
R.I.P. FTP
·
· Score: 1
The college that my mother works at uses sftp to do all the off campus file transfers. Specifically they use FileZilla with a walkthrough as to how to get it done. From what I gather they're not having a whole lot of trouble with it. Then again, they do have a couple of computer labs where they can walk people through the process from time to time if they need to. And I can assure anybody reading this comment that a fair number of them are barely computer literate, and even then just if I'm being generous.
But ultimately the bottom line is that while there are solutions to the issue of security, FTP is a protocol that probably ought to be replaced with something new, something that better tolerates the new realities of networking. IPv6 is a good excuse to scrap it for something that's redesigned to better handle that sort of thing.
I'm not familiar with Duchamp, but the work that Warhol used was typically created under his direction and was definitely distributed with relevant permission. It's completely legal to distribute other people's work under your own name provided that you've made appropriate arrangements to secure permission to do so. It's been something that's a part of art since well before the renaissance.
Additionally Warhol was well known for his commentary on the art market, which was an additional layer above what the piece was strictly speaking designed as. There was always an element of performance art to his whole work life.
One can typically figure that out easily enough, get formal written permission or use work that's attached to a license. If you can't do either of those, chances are you shouldn't be using it anyways.
Frequently you can secure the permission to do so for very little cost or at least far less than the cost of litigation. I mean yes it will tend to favor the creator of the original piece, but you're far less likely to end up in the situation where you're having to dump large sums of money down the drain to figure out the legal status.
In this particular case, it looks like he'd have been willing to provide the agreement for an autographed copy of the lithograph. Which while above what he's necessarily entitled to is far less expensive and time consuming than consulting with attorneys.
Sigh, I wish this myth would die. Technically speaking you cannot render 3 dimensions onto only 2 without making some sort of creative or editorial decision as to how the projection should work out. Factual photographs are a very specific type of photo which is aimed at preserving or relaying information rather than on expression.
Typically speaking the photo won't have any meaningful creative element to it and will just consist of documentary evidence. Sort of like group photos or pictures of museum pieces used for documentation.
Yeah, it's sort of a nickname of source for photographers. Mostly because it's more or less the shortest you can go without causing ambiguity. Photo being taken and Phot being just absurd. It's just one of those words you run into if you go to enough sites, sort of like CRP or Camera Reversus Phobia.
Pretty much any technical field you go into has that sort of thing that goes on mostly to speed things up and figure out who's just a poser.
Actually in this case it's a perfectly valid way of looking at it. BMI was created for statistical analysis. And that's what it's being used for.
With the relatively small number of people that have died as a result of the H1N1 it's much easier to detect whether or not it's accurate for the group. But when doing models of how this is likely to shape out, the BMI is a perfectly legitimate way of doing it. The only other measure that's reasonable to consider is the waste to hip ratio, and that's not really designed for this.
And can you provide a way of doing it for less than $0? Part of the problem is that they've paid to develop a reputation and are now having to compete against themselves. This isn't a case of using the term in reference to the Rosetta Stone software, this is a way of Google profiting off of trademark infringement and piracy.
The common thread amongst racists that I've found is that they invariably want someone to blame for the state of their own lives, and they choose someone who is obviously different from them, because it's easy. These guys aren't smart, capable people; they're losers. It takes people with amazing charisma and a climate of social discontent to legitimise racially prejudicial attitudes - insulting cartoons shoved under a synagogue door don't make the grade.
Right, and that's why we in the US have such a hard time with it. We're bound by the first amendment to allow a lot of that crap to be said, and lacking a way of separating it out without violating the rights of people to properly debate the issue we're stuck with it that way.
The problem though is that when bigots like Bill O'reilly or Rush Limbaugh stoke the flames, eventually somebody out there can and will take them up on it. It's already happened at least 2 times in recent memory. The DC Holocaust museum shooter and the man in PA that shot and killed several police officers a couple months back. They were both white supremecists, they both believed that the President was coming for their guns, despite all the evidence to the contrary and they both murdered innocent people as a result of delusional beliefs.
That's a rather dangerous position to have. The traditional example is yelling fire in a crowded theater.
It's somewhat like saying that during the 20s and 30s when the Klan was at the height of its power that it's OK to repeat Klan talking points, just don't be the one that's actually throwing the bombs. A bit extreme yes, but ultimately a lot of these sorts of things would never happen without a large number of people egging it on, looking the other way and backing the view that it's normal and therefore OK. The DC holocaust museum murderer and the man that killed several police officers in PA both were responding to claims which were known to be false about the Presidents position on gun control as well as racism.
The first amendment has never been absolute, there's always been prohibitions on things such as threats, libel and slander allowing for an extra penalty for the extra damage that hate speech does when it crosses the line is perfectly reasonable. A significant amount of bigotry finds its way onto places like Fox News, there is no need for more rights considering how far one can go already without being harassed by law enforcement.
I disagree, the legal standard is fairly high as to when the police can intervene. It leaves more than enough room for exercising ones first amendment rights. There's all kinds of things that one can say which are protected, even though they are definitely noxious at best.
The hate crimes legislation comes into play, at least in the US, when it crosses from just expression to incitement of violence or represents a threat to other people's safety. This isn't really that fine of a line, I'm not aware of cases going forward where it wasn't terribly obvious that it had crossed the line sometime previously.
That being said, that's in the US, the various EU states are much more aggressive about it than we are, to the point, where you really can't seriously suggest that there is a real freedom of speech in many parts of the EU.
Not in this case. Since there isn't a valid basis for claiming copyright, it doesn't belong to anybody.
This is a pretty clear case of catalog photography as in photographs for the purpose of cataloging the items. Any work that was done in the pre-Disney era is not going to be subjected to copyright protection and since these photos weren't creative in nature rather an attempt to duplicate public domain work, they aren't entitled to copyright protection. They may feel entitled to being paid, but they're not entitled to any money or other forms of relief as the photos could be taken by anybody with access to the works.
If that's the case, then you were doing something wrong. Firefox rarely uses more than 300mb of memory on my machine and tends not to crash either definitely not 2 to 3 times a day. Also, if you're only using it for 2 or 3 minutes a day, you're clearly doing something specifically to make it crash, because I've had this window open for multiples of that time right now and it has yet to crash
It's become common place for people to blame Firefox for things like Flash crashing or the gunk that comes from browsing. I've been browsing for some time with noscript and without flash and I rarely end up with this kind of trouble. On top of that I have the cache, cookies and history cleared upon exit. And I'm not having any sort of trouble of the sort you're describing.
I don't mind people criticizing Firefox, but this immature trolling because of your own incompetence is enough to make one slightly annoyed.
I've got mixed feelings about this. On the one hand I would consider this sort of monitoring questionable in terms of privacy issues. But on the other hand if this interpretation is upheld it represents a serious set back to the RIAA in its endeavor to bring lawsuits against alleged pirates.
At some point there'll have to be a determination as to which is it, evidence that somebody in particular was online or not a form of identifying people. We can't have it both ways. So, all in all it's probably a good thing, if for no other reason than the issue might finally be resolved in the legal sense.
It tends to be completely arbitrary. Abortion bad, IVF good, Stem cell research bad etc. I for one am willing to go along with IVF being legal if we can at least gain research embryos from the spares. I've felt for sometime that it was egregious to purposely create embryos that wouldn't be given the opportunity to grow or serve any other purpose.
I don't like abortions personally, but I like government interference in ones bedroom less, and most of the time it's not a matter of people not caring enough to use protection anyways.
So in other words, the ability to construct a flamebait straw man on pseudo-ethical pseudo-religious lines makes it controversial.
Despite what many think, that's not even the slightest bit apples to apples. It is definitively known that a bundle of cells cannot feel what we know as pain, the portions of the nervous system that can don't develop until much later. And it's still later that those impulses can be properly decoded.
Yes, because only an idiot would still be eating bread. The appropriate action would wait until there's a method in place to demonstrate the safety then tell people it's safe.
Saying it's poisoned over and over again tends to have a diminishing effect on people's interest.
Slashdot Mirror
Citation necessary on that. The reality is that a game is going to be pirated whether the developer does something about it or not, but adding many tens of thousands of dollars. That's a huge number of games one would have to sell just to break even. Additionally there's been at least one study out that suggests pretty strongly that DRM itself causes a goodly chunk of piracy.
In other words, they'd probably have better luck if they weren't besmirching their own image by cracking down on people that are trying to use their legitimately paid for copy. I for one refuse to buy from Steam or any company that expects to lock down all of my content based upon what they feel like doing without recourse. Addtionally, as much as I'd like to play Spore, I haven't bought a copy because I absolutely refuse to buy software that can be deactivated after a few installs just because the company is afraid of piracy.
But that's who this is geared towards. The people that are carrying around data that is incredibly sensitive. Why these people are carrying it around on a thumb drive is a much bigger question, really, if you don't want it cracked, you shouldn't be carrying it on a portable easily lost/stolen medium.
Isn't this the sort of thing that ZFS is for? Admittedly, that would add a lot of cost to the array, but it should provide substantial safety.
At that point, you'd probably be paying somewhere in the neighborhood of 2-3k or a bit more depending upon specifics, but what good is 10TB of data if it's not properly set up. Of course, that doesn't include the cost of backing it up either, but hey.
And that's where the legislature ought to be stepping in. Put a tax, fine or require companies to pay for the damage that they do by not properly securing their equipment. Or better still fine the crap out of companies that get caught advertising via spam.
There's far, far more wrong with FTP than would be fixed by proper authentication regimes, it wasn't ever meant to be used in a networking environment that doesn't allow for direct connections between machines without hackery.
The college that my mother works at uses sftp to do all the off campus file transfers. Specifically they use FileZilla with a walkthrough as to how to get it done. From what I gather they're not having a whole lot of trouble with it. Then again, they do have a couple of computer labs where they can walk people through the process from time to time if they need to. And I can assure anybody reading this comment that a fair number of them are barely computer literate, and even then just if I'm being generous.
But ultimately the bottom line is that while there are solutions to the issue of security, FTP is a protocol that probably ought to be replaced with something new, something that better tolerates the new realities of networking. IPv6 is a good excuse to scrap it for something that's redesigned to better handle that sort of thing.
I'm not familiar with Duchamp, but the work that Warhol used was typically created under his direction and was definitely distributed with relevant permission. It's completely legal to distribute other people's work under your own name provided that you've made appropriate arrangements to secure permission to do so. It's been something that's a part of art since well before the renaissance.
Additionally Warhol was well known for his commentary on the art market, which was an additional layer above what the piece was strictly speaking designed as. There was always an element of performance art to his whole work life.
One can typically figure that out easily enough, get formal written permission or use work that's attached to a license. If you can't do either of those, chances are you shouldn't be using it anyways.
Frequently you can secure the permission to do so for very little cost or at least far less than the cost of litigation. I mean yes it will tend to favor the creator of the original piece, but you're far less likely to end up in the situation where you're having to dump large sums of money down the drain to figure out the legal status.
In this particular case, it looks like he'd have been willing to provide the agreement for an autographed copy of the lithograph. Which while above what he's necessarily entitled to is far less expensive and time consuming than consulting with attorneys.
Sigh, I wish this myth would die. Technically speaking you cannot render 3 dimensions onto only 2 without making some sort of creative or editorial decision as to how the projection should work out. Factual photographs are a very specific type of photo which is aimed at preserving or relaying information rather than on expression.
Typically speaking the photo won't have any meaningful creative element to it and will just consist of documentary evidence. Sort of like group photos or pictures of museum pieces used for documentation.
Yeah, it's sort of a nickname of source for photographers. Mostly because it's more or less the shortest you can go without causing ambiguity. Photo being taken and Phot being just absurd. It's just one of those words you run into if you go to enough sites, sort of like CRP or Camera Reversus Phobia.
Pretty much any technical field you go into has that sort of thing that goes on mostly to speed things up and figure out who's just a poser.
Actually in this case it's a perfectly valid way of looking at it. BMI was created for statistical analysis. And that's what it's being used for.
With the relatively small number of people that have died as a result of the H1N1 it's much easier to detect whether or not it's accurate for the group. But when doing models of how this is likely to shape out, the BMI is a perfectly legitimate way of doing it. The only other measure that's reasonable to consider is the waste to hip ratio, and that's not really designed for this.
And can you provide a way of doing it for less than $0? Part of the problem is that they've paid to develop a reputation and are now having to compete against themselves. This isn't a case of using the term in reference to the Rosetta Stone software, this is a way of Google profiting off of trademark infringement and piracy.
You mean Internet Explorer?
Yes, and for $10 I'll tell you.
The common thread amongst racists that I've found is that they invariably want someone to blame for the state of their own lives, and they choose someone who is obviously different from them, because it's easy. These guys aren't smart, capable people; they're losers. It takes people with amazing charisma and a climate of social discontent to legitimise racially prejudicial attitudes - insulting cartoons shoved under a synagogue door don't make the grade.
Right, and that's why we in the US have such a hard time with it. We're bound by the first amendment to allow a lot of that crap to be said, and lacking a way of separating it out without violating the rights of people to properly debate the issue we're stuck with it that way.
The problem though is that when bigots like Bill O'reilly or Rush Limbaugh stoke the flames, eventually somebody out there can and will take them up on it. It's already happened at least 2 times in recent memory. The DC Holocaust museum shooter and the man in PA that shot and killed several police officers a couple months back. They were both white supremecists, they both believed that the President was coming for their guns, despite all the evidence to the contrary and they both murdered innocent people as a result of delusional beliefs.
That's a rather dangerous position to have. The traditional example is yelling fire in a crowded theater.
It's somewhat like saying that during the 20s and 30s when the Klan was at the height of its power that it's OK to repeat Klan talking points, just don't be the one that's actually throwing the bombs. A bit extreme yes, but ultimately a lot of these sorts of things would never happen without a large number of people egging it on, looking the other way and backing the view that it's normal and therefore OK. The DC holocaust museum murderer and the man that killed several police officers in PA both were responding to claims which were known to be false about the Presidents position on gun control as well as racism.
The first amendment has never been absolute, there's always been prohibitions on things such as threats, libel and slander allowing for an extra penalty for the extra damage that hate speech does when it crosses the line is perfectly reasonable. A significant amount of bigotry finds its way onto places like Fox News, there is no need for more rights considering how far one can go already without being harassed by law enforcement.
I disagree, the legal standard is fairly high as to when the police can intervene. It leaves more than enough room for exercising ones first amendment rights. There's all kinds of things that one can say which are protected, even though they are definitely noxious at best.
The hate crimes legislation comes into play, at least in the US, when it crosses from just expression to incitement of violence or represents a threat to other people's safety. This isn't really that fine of a line, I'm not aware of cases going forward where it wasn't terribly obvious that it had crossed the line sometime previously.
That being said, that's in the US, the various EU states are much more aggressive about it than we are, to the point, where you really can't seriously suggest that there is a real freedom of speech in many parts of the EU.
Not in this case. Since there isn't a valid basis for claiming copyright, it doesn't belong to anybody.
This is a pretty clear case of catalog photography as in photographs for the purpose of cataloging the items. Any work that was done in the pre-Disney era is not going to be subjected to copyright protection and since these photos weren't creative in nature rather an attempt to duplicate public domain work, they aren't entitled to copyright protection. They may feel entitled to being paid, but they're not entitled to any money or other forms of relief as the photos could be taken by anybody with access to the works.
If that's the case, then you were doing something wrong. Firefox rarely uses more than 300mb of memory on my machine and tends not to crash either definitely not 2 to 3 times a day. Also, if you're only using it for 2 or 3 minutes a day, you're clearly doing something specifically to make it crash, because I've had this window open for multiples of that time right now and it has yet to crash
It's become common place for people to blame Firefox for things like Flash crashing or the gunk that comes from browsing. I've been browsing for some time with noscript and without flash and I rarely end up with this kind of trouble. On top of that I have the cache, cookies and history cleared upon exit. And I'm not having any sort of trouble of the sort you're describing.
I don't mind people criticizing Firefox, but this immature trolling because of your own incompetence is enough to make one slightly annoyed.
I've got mixed feelings about this. On the one hand I would consider this sort of monitoring questionable in terms of privacy issues. But on the other hand if this interpretation is upheld it represents a serious set back to the RIAA in its endeavor to bring lawsuits against alleged pirates.
At some point there'll have to be a determination as to which is it, evidence that somebody in particular was online or not a form of identifying people. We can't have it both ways. So, all in all it's probably a good thing, if for no other reason than the issue might finally be resolved in the legal sense.
They completely ignored 200 years of precedent and failed to explain why. I'm sorry, but that's activism.
I think that if we should cure this great nation of Republicans and Democrats that should be the first step towards true greatness.
It tends to be completely arbitrary. Abortion bad, IVF good, Stem cell research bad etc. I for one am willing to go along with IVF being legal if we can at least gain research embryos from the spares. I've felt for sometime that it was egregious to purposely create embryos that wouldn't be given the opportunity to grow or serve any other purpose.
I don't like abortions personally, but I like government interference in ones bedroom less, and most of the time it's not a matter of people not caring enough to use protection anyways.
So in other words, the ability to construct a flamebait straw man on pseudo-ethical pseudo-religious lines makes it controversial.
Despite what many think, that's not even the slightest bit apples to apples. It is definitively known that a bundle of cells cannot feel what we know as pain, the portions of the nervous system that can don't develop until much later. And it's still later that those impulses can be properly decoded.
Yes, because only an idiot would still be eating bread. The appropriate action would wait until there's a method in place to demonstrate the safety then tell people it's safe.
Saying it's poisoned over and over again tends to have a diminishing effect on people's interest.
Hmm, blood, wet, erected, I can't possibly think of something else that might benefit from the technology for advertising.