What are you talking about? And who modded this insightful?
We're not talking about a civil rights issue, we're talking about an option you can turn on or off in your browser. It's not a problem for most people, so they don't turn it off. It's there to be turned off if you like. We're not even talking about getting rid of that option, we're just discussing sane defaults.
Can you give a decent explanation of how this relates to police brutality?
For most TV networks, advertisers are their customers and viewers are their product. It appears to be a profitable business model, but I think consumers are starting to get sick of that mindset. This is one of the reasons I really like Netflix. They may not have every movie or TV show ever made on watch instantly yet, but they treat me like I'm their customer, rather than a product they're selling to someone else.
That was my thought. Microsoft can't very well indemnify against injunctive relief. If Windows mobile violates a patent, and the patent owner is granted an injunction, the manufacturers would still find themselves unable to ship phones with the OS.
But ripping discs isn't really the target here. There are already tools available which can rip BluRay discs in software, without having to read a disc and play them over the wire in real time. More practically, this is targeted at streaming video sources such as video from your cable company, or perhaps for ripping from your cable company's DVR. Those streams are seldom (never?) higher than 1080i or 720p at standard frame rates, so 30fps in real time gets the job done.
I'm not saying 720p at 59.94 is worthless, but 30fps would support the majority of use cases.
It may be a legacy format, but there's a lot of content still available for it, and I can't imagine the cost of supporting it is that high. I have a TV tuner which does on board DivX encoding, and I have about a terabyte of (legally recorded) TV shows. Even if most of the people who would take advantage of DivX decoding are pirates, why should the hardware manufacturer care if it helps sell units? As far as I'm concerned, any media center device which doesn't support such a common legacy format isn't worth considering.
The thing is, the horse hasn't really left the barn. At this point HDCP isn't really about preventing piracy - there are much better ways to rip most HD content. The value of HDCP to Intel is that it forces anyone who wants to build an HDMI compatible device to license HDCP if their users want to get the full HD experience. Thanks to the DMCA, the leaked master key doesn't mean much on that front. There may be some Chinese manufacturers putting out a few cheaper devices, but anything the average consumer will buy at Best Buy still has to license HDCP from Intel. In this statement, Intel is making it clear that they intend to use the DMCA to enforce licensing requirements against any manufacturers who might think this means they don't have to license HDCP anymore.
It takes no longer to write software that 1000 people use vs 10 people.
That's not completely true. I write software for clients with specific needs. It's rare that I could find two different customers with the same specific needs. I might find two customers with intersecting needs, in which case I could write one application that would meet the needs of both customers while having other aspects that would go unused by one client or the other.
Writing an application that meets the needs of 10 people probably wouldn't be as involved as writing an application that meets the needs of 1000 people. But in general, you're right. Once you've established a feature set and created an application, anyone whose needs are met by the application can use it without adding to the development costs.
From what I understand, Diaspora is designed to make this cycle impossible, or at least difficult. Diaspora is designed to be distributed, decentralized, and open source. The different nodes communicate with each other and share information, but I believe if you don't trust the node your account is hosted on you can trivially move to a different one (even one you host yourself).
Here's the thing: In the working world if you roll your own implementation and your implementation gets compromised then you can probably expect to be fired. If you use a widely deployed, standard implementation and that implementation gets compromised you not only have someone to blame, but your employer would have a hard time finding someone to replace you that wouldn't have made the same mistake.
But the games I've seen that use this model aren't particularly competitive games. Someone having different crops or larger fields in Farmville doesn't do much to inhibit someone else's enjoyment of the game. There isn't really a concept of winning or losing, just progress, and one person's progress in mostly unaffected by the progress of others.
There may be some games that use this monetization model with a win/lose paradigm, but I imagine they'd have a hard time keeping people who are unwilling to put up real money.
I agree that you shouldn't mod redundant to the first person who says "Get a lawyer" but about 50% of the comments here have no meaningful content other than "get a lawyer." They're contributing nothing to the thread, so "redundant" seems like a perfectly good assessment.
I'm getting tired of all this circle jerking about smart phones. There can be more than one smartphone operating system. There doesn't have to be a "victor" to have a successful smartphone OS. There's no reason that the success of Windows 7 phone (or whatever it's called, I don't really care) has to be predicated on the death of the iPhone. The two can coexist. Yes, they'll compete with each other, but there doesn't always have to be a winner and a loser.
I'm an android fan. My current phone is Android based, and my next phone will probably be android based. But if someone would prefer an iPhone, a Windows Mobile phone, a phone from Palm or Blackberry, I really don't care. The existence of competitors in no way reduces the utility of my own phone. In fact, the existence of competition probably leads to improvements for all of the phones.
It ultimately boils down to the Prisoner's Dilemma, just at a larger scale. For any individual, the best outcome happens when other parties cooperate but the individual defects. The best outcome overall is for all parties to cooperate, and the worst outcome overall is for all (or even most) parties to defect.
What's your point? They are a payment processor, so it's inevitable that they will be in possession of your money at some point. This guy wasn't deliberately storing his money in Paypal, the €600,000 is from payments accured since paypal locked him out of his account.
And all the games you've already bought that require the online section. If I bought a game believing I'd be able to play it online for the life of the console, then they pulled something like this then that game has lost a significant portion of its value.
As I've said elsewhere, I don't see what they stand to accomplish from a character assassination. He's not a politician they can keep from being elected. As far as I know he's not looking for a job that people will be unwilling to hire him for. Most of the information they leak is reasonably verifiable, so it won't be easily dismissed just because it was released by an accused rapist. The people who are leaking information to him aren't going to buy into the defamation, so it's not like they'll choose not to leak their information because they'd have to go through an accused rapist. Finally, I assume Assange realized he was going to need thick skin before he started the whole operation, so it's not like he'll just decide to back down to save his reputation.
Now, an actual assassination might accomplish something, but I really don't see what anyone thinks a character assassination will accomplish.
For a website like a forum that doesn't have any physical presence in a particular location, what constitutes not doing business in a state? Do I have to do IP geolocation and block users from that state, or can I just put in my terms of use that users from that state may not use the site?
Well, okay, that's not true. Ubuntu has bungled the last couple upgrades to the point where I'm no longer willing to perform an in-place upgrade,
Really? I've been an Ubuntu user for about five years now, and the last three or four releases are the only ones that haven't been bungled. I realize this is just my personal experience, but I was under the impression they were getting better.
The idea of having DANGER WILL ROBINSON DANGER alerts on connections on that are more secure than normal HTTP was idiotic
I agree with you on the need for a new protocol, but given currently available protocols I think the DANGER WILL ROBINSON DANGER is necessary. Self-signed connections are not more secure than HTTP unless you have independently verified the certificate. A man-in-the-middle can decrypt messages from the server, reencrypt them with his own certificate, and pass them along to the client. When the client sends information back, the man-in-the-middle can decrypt them (because they were encrypted with his certificate), reencrypt them with the server's certificate, and forward them along to the server. The encryption provides no tangible security, because it can readily be undone by anyone in the middle of the connection. This isn't some theoretical attack, there are readily available open-source tools that any script kiddie can use to do this, and if an organization wanted to do this on a large scale, they could do so with equipment that costs only a few thousand dollars.
What's more, if browsers treated self-signed certificates the same way it treated HTTP connections, 90% of users would never realize something was wrong. Until about 2 generations ago, most browsers popped up simple dialog boxes that users clicked through on autopilot before sending sensitive information to phishers. If they ignored dialog boxes, there's no way that simply not showing the lock is going to bring a problem to the user's attention.
Given that users won't be aware that something is wrong without putting a huge warning in front of them, consider this: If an attacker wanted to man-in-the middle a CA signed HTTPS connection, it works exactly the same way a man-in-the-middle attack against a self-signed certificate works. He decrypts data sent from the server and relays it to the client with his own self-signed cert. If the browser doesn't panic the user a bit, the user is going to give their credentials to the man-in-the middle.
Citation? I'm not making any authoritative claims on the subject, but based on my personal observations most of the particularly heavy people I know drive smaller cars than my own. From what I've seen tall people are likely to want larger cars so they can get in and out more comfortably, but I haven't really noticed any correlation between car size and obesity.
Basically, they had written out a manual for breaking reCAPTCHA, copied their manual into powerpoint slides. Then they stood in front of the audience and read straight from the slides, providing practically nothing we couldn't have gotten just from reading the slides.
On about the third slide, someone in the audience yells out "Are you guys seriously going to just stand up there and read your slides?" And one of the presenters confirmed that they were indeed going to stand up there and read their slides. Half the audience got up and left. If it weren't for my strong personal interest in breaking CAPTCHAs I would have been in the half that left.
As a couple of ACs have pointed out, the people breaking CAPTCHAs aren't using browsers, they're using scripts. They don't care if a DOM element is hidden, or if they have to make an extra ajax request of some sort. The scripts will be tailored to the CAPTCHA they're trying to break, and you can't keep a script from getting a hold of something that you plan to show a human.
They're not. I saw the presentation these guys gave at DefCon (their presentation was about as painful as their website), and they're only getting the test word correct with about 30% accuracy. They're not completely sure about their success rates on book words, but they believe it to be considerably lower than the test words.
Slashdot Mirror
What are you talking about? And who modded this insightful?
We're not talking about a civil rights issue, we're talking about an option you can turn on or off in your browser. It's not a problem for most people, so they don't turn it off. It's there to be turned off if you like. We're not even talking about getting rid of that option, we're just discussing sane defaults.
Can you give a decent explanation of how this relates to police brutality?
For most TV networks, advertisers are their customers and viewers are their product. It appears to be a profitable business model, but I think consumers are starting to get sick of that mindset. This is one of the reasons I really like Netflix. They may not have every movie or TV show ever made on watch instantly yet, but they treat me like I'm their customer, rather than a product they're selling to someone else.
That was my thought. Microsoft can't very well indemnify against injunctive relief. If Windows mobile violates a patent, and the patent owner is granted an injunction, the manufacturers would still find themselves unable to ship phones with the OS.
But ripping discs isn't really the target here. There are already tools available which can rip BluRay discs in software, without having to read a disc and play them over the wire in real time. More practically, this is targeted at streaming video sources such as video from your cable company, or perhaps for ripping from your cable company's DVR. Those streams are seldom (never?) higher than 1080i or 720p at standard frame rates, so 30fps in real time gets the job done.
I'm not saying 720p at 59.94 is worthless, but 30fps would support the majority of use cases.
It may be a legacy format, but there's a lot of content still available for it, and I can't imagine the cost of supporting it is that high. I have a TV tuner which does on board DivX encoding, and I have about a terabyte of (legally recorded) TV shows. Even if most of the people who would take advantage of DivX decoding are pirates, why should the hardware manufacturer care if it helps sell units? As far as I'm concerned, any media center device which doesn't support such a common legacy format isn't worth considering.
The thing is, the horse hasn't really left the barn. At this point HDCP isn't really about preventing piracy - there are much better ways to rip most HD content. The value of HDCP to Intel is that it forces anyone who wants to build an HDMI compatible device to license HDCP if their users want to get the full HD experience. Thanks to the DMCA, the leaked master key doesn't mean much on that front. There may be some Chinese manufacturers putting out a few cheaper devices, but anything the average consumer will buy at Best Buy still has to license HDCP from Intel. In this statement, Intel is making it clear that they intend to use the DMCA to enforce licensing requirements against any manufacturers who might think this means they don't have to license HDCP anymore.
That's not completely true. I write software for clients with specific needs. It's rare that I could find two different customers with the same specific needs. I might find two customers with intersecting needs, in which case I could write one application that would meet the needs of both customers while having other aspects that would go unused by one client or the other.
Writing an application that meets the needs of 10 people probably wouldn't be as involved as writing an application that meets the needs of 1000 people. But in general, you're right. Once you've established a feature set and created an application, anyone whose needs are met by the application can use it without adding to the development costs.
From what I understand, Diaspora is designed to make this cycle impossible, or at least difficult. Diaspora is designed to be distributed, decentralized, and open source. The different nodes communicate with each other and share information, but I believe if you don't trust the node your account is hosted on you can trivially move to a different one (even one you host yourself).
Here's the thing: In the working world if you roll your own implementation and your implementation gets compromised then you can probably expect to be fired. If you use a widely deployed, standard implementation and that implementation gets compromised you not only have someone to blame, but your employer would have a hard time finding someone to replace you that wouldn't have made the same mistake.
But the games I've seen that use this model aren't particularly competitive games. Someone having different crops or larger fields in Farmville doesn't do much to inhibit someone else's enjoyment of the game. There isn't really a concept of winning or losing, just progress, and one person's progress in mostly unaffected by the progress of others.
There may be some games that use this monetization model with a win/lose paradigm, but I imagine they'd have a hard time keeping people who are unwilling to put up real money.
I agree that you shouldn't mod redundant to the first person who says "Get a lawyer" but about 50% of the comments here have no meaningful content other than "get a lawyer." They're contributing nothing to the thread, so "redundant" seems like a perfectly good assessment.
I'm getting tired of all this circle jerking about smart phones. There can be more than one smartphone operating system. There doesn't have to be a "victor" to have a successful smartphone OS. There's no reason that the success of Windows 7 phone (or whatever it's called, I don't really care) has to be predicated on the death of the iPhone. The two can coexist. Yes, they'll compete with each other, but there doesn't always have to be a winner and a loser.
I'm an android fan. My current phone is Android based, and my next phone will probably be android based. But if someone would prefer an iPhone, a Windows Mobile phone, a phone from Palm or Blackberry, I really don't care. The existence of competitors in no way reduces the utility of my own phone. In fact, the existence of competition probably leads to improvements for all of the phones.
It ultimately boils down to the Prisoner's Dilemma, just at a larger scale. For any individual, the best outcome happens when other parties cooperate but the individual defects. The best outcome overall is for all parties to cooperate, and the worst outcome overall is for all (or even most) parties to defect.
What's your point? They are a payment processor, so it's inevitable that they will be in possession of your money at some point. This guy wasn't deliberately storing his money in Paypal, the €600,000 is from payments accured since paypal locked him out of his account.
Right. It sounds like they're trying to make sure this doesn't change when net neutrality rules pass.
And all the games you've already bought that require the online section. If I bought a game believing I'd be able to play it online for the life of the console, then they pulled something like this then that game has lost a significant portion of its value.
As I've said elsewhere, I don't see what they stand to accomplish from a character assassination. He's not a politician they can keep from being elected. As far as I know he's not looking for a job that people will be unwilling to hire him for. Most of the information they leak is reasonably verifiable, so it won't be easily dismissed just because it was released by an accused rapist. The people who are leaking information to him aren't going to buy into the defamation, so it's not like they'll choose not to leak their information because they'd have to go through an accused rapist. Finally, I assume Assange realized he was going to need thick skin before he started the whole operation, so it's not like he'll just decide to back down to save his reputation.
Now, an actual assassination might accomplish something, but I really don't see what anyone thinks a character assassination will accomplish.
For a website like a forum that doesn't have any physical presence in a particular location, what constitutes not doing business in a state? Do I have to do IP geolocation and block users from that state, or can I just put in my terms of use that users from that state may not use the site?
Last I checked Firefox was adamantly opposed to even using the system codecs for h264. Have they changed from this position?
Really? I've been an Ubuntu user for about five years now, and the last three or four releases are the only ones that haven't been bungled. I realize this is just my personal experience, but I was under the impression they were getting better.
I agree with you on the need for a new protocol, but given currently available protocols I think the DANGER WILL ROBINSON DANGER is necessary. Self-signed connections are not more secure than HTTP unless you have independently verified the certificate. A man-in-the-middle can decrypt messages from the server, reencrypt them with his own certificate, and pass them along to the client. When the client sends information back, the man-in-the-middle can decrypt them (because they were encrypted with his certificate), reencrypt them with the server's certificate, and forward them along to the server. The encryption provides no tangible security, because it can readily be undone by anyone in the middle of the connection. This isn't some theoretical attack, there are readily available open-source tools that any script kiddie can use to do this, and if an organization wanted to do this on a large scale, they could do so with equipment that costs only a few thousand dollars.
What's more, if browsers treated self-signed certificates the same way it treated HTTP connections, 90% of users would never realize something was wrong. Until about 2 generations ago, most browsers popped up simple dialog boxes that users clicked through on autopilot before sending sensitive information to phishers. If they ignored dialog boxes, there's no way that simply not showing the lock is going to bring a problem to the user's attention.
Given that users won't be aware that something is wrong without putting a huge warning in front of them, consider this: If an attacker wanted to man-in-the middle a CA signed HTTPS connection, it works exactly the same way a man-in-the-middle attack against a self-signed certificate works. He decrypts data sent from the server and relays it to the client with his own self-signed cert. If the browser doesn't panic the user a bit, the user is going to give their credentials to the man-in-the middle.
Citation? I'm not making any authoritative claims on the subject, but based on my personal observations most of the particularly heavy people I know drive smaller cars than my own. From what I've seen tall people are likely to want larger cars so they can get in and out more comfortably, but I haven't really noticed any correlation between car size and obesity.
Basically, they had written out a manual for breaking reCAPTCHA, copied their manual into powerpoint slides. Then they stood in front of the audience and read straight from the slides, providing practically nothing we couldn't have gotten just from reading the slides.
On about the third slide, someone in the audience yells out "Are you guys seriously going to just stand up there and read your slides?" And one of the presenters confirmed that they were indeed going to stand up there and read their slides. Half the audience got up and left. If it weren't for my strong personal interest in breaking CAPTCHAs I would have been in the half that left.
As a couple of ACs have pointed out, the people breaking CAPTCHAs aren't using browsers, they're using scripts. They don't care if a DOM element is hidden, or if they have to make an extra ajax request of some sort. The scripts will be tailored to the CAPTCHA they're trying to break, and you can't keep a script from getting a hold of something that you plan to show a human.
They're not. I saw the presentation these guys gave at DefCon (their presentation was about as painful as their website), and they're only getting the test word correct with about 30% accuracy. They're not completely sure about their success rates on book words, but they believe it to be considerably lower than the test words.