It's never that simple. Often (not every time...depends on how aggressive you were in negotiation, and how good your lawyer was), the contract will include clauses that say that the label owns everything you record until "x" number of albums are released, and some even say that the label gets to decide which songs are good enough for an album (meaning, if you want to leave, they can keep you tied up by saying none of your stuff is "good enough").
I think people are going to have a lot more than that when recording HDTV with a Tivo-alike device. 1TB works out to about 100-ish hours (yes, I'm rounding heavily) of HD video. Tivo certainly has users who record & keep that much video.
While I'm all for solar and wind, there are some really good reasons why they're not really the answer (for a great explanation of why, see Sustainable Energy - without the hot air ). You're close to the right answer, though. The industry that *should* be growing in leaps and bounds is energy. Solar should be a part of that (though, again not enough on its own), but nuclear needs to be there, though, and we *need* to figure out details of how to handle nuclear power long-term.
The really long term answer is fusion. One can only hope it's figured out in our lifetimes.
The Vernam-Mauborgne one-time pad was recognized early on as difficult to break, but its special status was only established by Claude Shannon some 25 years later. He proved, using information theory considerations, that the one-time pad has a property he termed perfect secrecy; that is, the ciphertext C gives absolutely no additional information about the plaintext
It's not that people are paranoid, but there are occasional events that are creepy, which point to a need for more privacy.
The one that was the tipping point for me actually happened to a co-worker: in the mid-late 90's he was taking AZT (yes, he had AIDS). The creepy part came shortly after getting his first AZT prescription filled...a few weeks after his first prescription he started getting mailed advertisements for graveyard plots. Yes, his pharmacy had sold the fact that he was taking AZT to a marketing company, who realized he was about to die & tried to sell him a grave. It's not that he was being targeted in any malicious way, but I think it's clear (at least, to me) that his privacy had been badly violated by his pharmacy.
That's the sort of thing I use as a model for privacy. In the intervening years, health data has been (somewhat) protected, but I think it's still a valid point for consideration: you may not think of your own information as important, but some of it can still be used to make some very creepy conclusions about you, and will be used in some very creepy ways if you're not careful.
I only caught the end of their talk and the question session, so I might have mis-read their design....but, it appeared that they were talking about distributing an app. Apparently they wanted to use email as a transport mechanism for their data, not run an http->email gateway. (I *think* this is because they also wanted to be able to get past content-parsing proxies, so they were encrypting the data in the emails.)
Well, they presented it just a couple weeks ago at DefCon, so apparently their right hand isn't quite on speaking terms with their left hand. There were some...pointed questions from the DefCon crowd, though, which they didn't have good answers for. One big concern for me, which I didn't see them address well: how do you bootstrap this? (Ie, why not just block downloads of the application itself, or arrest everyone who does download it?)
I volunteered to run a polling place this past election cycle, so I have a few thoughts on this:
1) One of the reasons that the electronic voting systems have so many problems is that the local and state elections board are *not* IT shops. They don't spend the time on IT to really get it, and probably won't for a good many years to come. (For example, my local election board had not considered that there would be a pretty significant failure rate on UPS' between election cycles...the UPS' to run the voting machines were a repeating problem across our district.)
2) The polling volunteers are not IT people, either. Well, some of them are, since people like me were volunteering...but the IT-aware folks were a small minority. There were many polling places that had no geeks at all to help them. For the average voting volunteer, you want to minimize the complication...these are the folks that call Geek Squad for help. Don't make them have to call Geek Squad to set up a polling place.
3) PKI is hard to get right, and fails pretty catastrophically if you get it wrong. If a simpler system can get you to a manageable risk level, why bother with the complication of PKI?
It's all about managing risk...sure, you can stuff ballot boxes, but it's difficult to do that on an enormous scale without being noticed (note: I didn't say impossible, just difficult). On the other hand, if you can simply edit a database to change votes, the barrier to entry for vote fraud drops dramatically.
We probably do have to accept that every voting system can be gamed...what we do *not* have to accept is that this means they're all equally good/bad.
The Touch was completely new to me, as I said (heck, I hadn't owned an Apple device since the Mac Quadra), and I'd tested & confirmed that it would mount as an USB storage device...I only found out the hard way once I was in Europe that mounting as an USB storage device does not mean it would allow me to *write* to it as an USB storage device. Honestly, if I have to go to that level of testing to make sure something works right, I think I'm justified in being annoyed.
Thanks. I'll have a look at that once I get home. I'm not overjoyed that I have to pay for that functionality (it's a USB device, why not make it act like one?), but having a way to do it is better than nothing.
You know what? Fuck you. I bought an iPod Touch about a month before traveling to Europe...I intended to use it as my way of keeping in contact with the folks back home without having to drag a big honkin' laptop all over the place. In general it worked well, but I think it's incredibly obnoxious to sling insults at me because I didn't spend every moment slavishly searching the App Store.
One big one that I find frustrating on the Touch is the inability to use it as an USB storage device. I brought the Touch with me on a recent trip to Europe, and found (much to my frustration) that I could not copy pictures from my camera over to the Touch without installing iTunes on every random computer I used. I wanted to just connect both the camera and the Touch to my friend's laptop & drag the pictures across...apparently Apple doesn't want me to do that, which I think is stupid.
Also, on a corporate level, I'd love to be able to have a separate App store that just our company's iPhones/Touches used. That would allow us to put out custom apps for just us, which would make the iPhone & Touch hugely popular at the office. But we can't. Pity.
While that statement is true on it's surface, it's also missing the point entirely. You also can't pull a people out of poverty by giving them food. You pull them out of poverty by teaching them how to do things for themselves (and minimizing corruption, but that's another discussion).
Put another way, giving developing nations access to information is the long term solution...food aid is the short term one.
Carbon never harmed anyone?! Are you kidding!? How much carbon is in a bullet? How much of a bomb's explosiveness is due to carbon reactions? I'll tell you: lots. You say Carbon's a dirty word, I'll tell you what: you're right...it is dirty. Have you ever handled powdered carbon, aka graphite? All it does is dirty stuff up. That stuff's nasty. So I think it's appropriate that carbon is a dirty word...it's a dirty, dirty element.
If carbon didn't exist, we'd live in a very different world.
As I mentioned in the Sony article, I'm really curious to know just how much copyright liability Sony (or anyone else) is exposed to by distributing software that's publicly known to be violating copyright. If Sony is aware that the company they're buying it from doesn't have the rights to distribute the software, and Sony then re-distributes it knowingly, can the owners of the copyright nail Sony for infringement also?
I'm quite curious if Sony has any liability here. The outcry has been pretty public, so it will be hard for Sony to say they were unaware of the claims of ownership by third parties. Does that make Sony's distribution of the software (presumably without permission of the people who had their code used in Green Dam) willful violation of copyright?
Workload manager: able to on the fly change how much resources are allocated to images AND (this is the cool thing, cause other VMs do that) give it goal times for operations. As in: Complete this task in 1/100th of a second, and it will allocate, on the fly, for that to happen, and it will guarantee it.
Oh, they exist. You're right that they're not as widespread as regular ones, since the hardware and software world is much more diverse. But, they are there. For example, there was a talk at blackhat 2007 about them (slides). One interesting side part of that talk for me was the question of how to research a cell phone virus without risking infecting the production network. (The answer: one hell of a Farraday cage around the lab.)
But, if they make the labs safe, where will the great stories (like pouring liquid nitrogen down a drain, or projectile canisters) come from? C'mon, someone has to serve as an example to everyone else...
It's a question of risk management. Is the risk of launching waste into orbit greater than the risk of keeping it around?
The biggest risk in launching stuff is the middle bit where it's being launched. To use a known example, the shuttle has run a 1-2% catastrophic failure rate over its lifetime (reference)...are we okay with one out of every hundred launches of nuclear waste becoming the equivalent of a dirty bomb? The answer so far has been no. (and making the containers more explosion-proof makes the entire launch vehicle far heavier, making the whole thing much less economical.)
Or, if you prefer the snarky answer: yeah, let's put lots of highly radioactive materials on top of an enormous pile of explosives. That's a good idea.
Slashdot Mirror
It's never that simple. Often (not every time...depends on how aggressive you were in negotiation, and how good your lawyer was), the contract will include clauses that say that the label owns everything you record until "x" number of albums are released, and some even say that the label gets to decide which songs are good enough for an album (meaning, if you want to leave, they can keep you tied up by saying none of your stuff is "good enough").
No, the last one isn't a typo:
monoprice has a 10' cable like it for $12
I think people are going to have a lot more than that when recording HDTV with a Tivo-alike device. 1TB works out to about 100-ish hours (yes, I'm rounding heavily) of HD video. Tivo certainly has users who record & keep that much video.
While I'm all for solar and wind, there are some really good reasons why they're not really the answer (for a great explanation of why, see Sustainable Energy - without the hot air ). You're close to the right answer, though. The industry that *should* be growing in leaps and bounds is energy. Solar should be a part of that (though, again not enough on its own), but nuclear needs to be there, though, and we *need* to figure out details of how to handle nuclear power long-term.
The really long term answer is fusion. One can only hope it's figured out in our lifetimes.
Oh, fer crying out loud, if you're going to use wikipedia notation, at least *check* wikipedia first:
The Vernam-Mauborgne one-time pad was recognized early on as difficult to break, but its special status was only established by Claude Shannon some 25 years later. He proved, using information theory considerations, that the one-time pad has a property he termed perfect secrecy; that is, the ciphertext C gives absolutely no additional information about the plaintext
It's not that people are paranoid, but there are occasional events that are creepy, which point to a need for more privacy.
The one that was the tipping point for me actually happened to a co-worker: in the mid-late 90's he was taking AZT (yes, he had AIDS). The creepy part came shortly after getting his first AZT prescription filled...a few weeks after his first prescription he started getting mailed advertisements for graveyard plots. Yes, his pharmacy had sold the fact that he was taking AZT to a marketing company, who realized he was about to die & tried to sell him a grave. It's not that he was being targeted in any malicious way, but I think it's clear (at least, to me) that his privacy had been badly violated by his pharmacy.
That's the sort of thing I use as a model for privacy. In the intervening years, health data has been (somewhat) protected, but I think it's still a valid point for consideration: you may not think of your own information as important, but some of it can still be used to make some very creepy conclusions about you, and will be used in some very creepy ways if you're not careful.
(reads maxume's mind)...ick. Pervert.
Winston Churchill?
I only caught the end of their talk and the question session, so I might have mis-read their design....but, it appeared that they were talking about distributing an app. Apparently they wanted to use email as a transport mechanism for their data, not run an http->email gateway. (I *think* this is because they also wanted to be able to get past content-parsing proxies, so they were encrypting the data in the emails.)
Well, they presented it just a couple weeks ago at DefCon, so apparently their right hand isn't quite on speaking terms with their left hand. There were some...pointed questions from the DefCon crowd, though, which they didn't have good answers for. One big concern for me, which I didn't see them address well: how do you bootstrap this? (Ie, why not just block downloads of the application itself, or arrest everyone who does download it?)
I volunteered to run a polling place this past election cycle, so I have a few thoughts on this:
1) One of the reasons that the electronic voting systems have so many problems is that the local and state elections board are *not* IT shops. They don't spend the time on IT to really get it, and probably won't for a good many years to come. (For example, my local election board had not considered that there would be a pretty significant failure rate on UPS' between election cycles...the UPS' to run the voting machines were a repeating problem across our district.)
2) The polling volunteers are not IT people, either. Well, some of them are, since people like me were volunteering...but the IT-aware folks were a small minority. There were many polling places that had no geeks at all to help them. For the average voting volunteer, you want to minimize the complication...these are the folks that call Geek Squad for help. Don't make them have to call Geek Squad to set up a polling place.
3) PKI is hard to get right, and fails pretty catastrophically if you get it wrong. If a simpler system can get you to a manageable risk level, why bother with the complication of PKI?
It's all about managing risk...sure, you can stuff ballot boxes, but it's difficult to do that on an enormous scale without being noticed (note: I didn't say impossible, just difficult). On the other hand, if you can simply edit a database to change votes, the barrier to entry for vote fraud drops dramatically.
We probably do have to accept that every voting system can be gamed...what we do *not* have to accept is that this means they're all equally good/bad.
Dude, seriously...do you hear yourself?
The Touch was completely new to me, as I said (heck, I hadn't owned an Apple device since the Mac Quadra), and I'd tested & confirmed that it would mount as an USB storage device...I only found out the hard way once I was in Europe that mounting as an USB storage device does not mean it would allow me to *write* to it as an USB storage device. Honestly, if I have to go to that level of testing to make sure something works right, I think I'm justified in being annoyed.
Your attitude doesn't help.
Thanks. I'll have a look at that once I get home. I'm not overjoyed that I have to pay for that functionality (it's a USB device, why not make it act like one?), but having a way to do it is better than nothing.
You know what? Fuck you. I bought an iPod Touch about a month before traveling to Europe...I intended to use it as my way of keeping in contact with the folks back home without having to drag a big honkin' laptop all over the place. In general it worked well, but I think it's incredibly obnoxious to sling insults at me because I didn't spend every moment slavishly searching the App Store.
Jackass.
One big one that I find frustrating on the Touch is the inability to use it as an USB storage device. I brought the Touch with me on a recent trip to Europe, and found (much to my frustration) that I could not copy pictures from my camera over to the Touch without installing iTunes on every random computer I used. I wanted to just connect both the camera and the Touch to my friend's laptop & drag the pictures across...apparently Apple doesn't want me to do that, which I think is stupid.
Also, on a corporate level, I'd love to be able to have a separate App store that just our company's iPhones/Touches used. That would allow us to put out custom apps for just us, which would make the iPhone & Touch hugely popular at the office. But we can't. Pity.
While that statement is true on it's surface, it's also missing the point entirely. You also can't pull a people out of poverty by giving them food. You pull them out of poverty by teaching them how to do things for themselves (and minimizing corruption, but that's another discussion).
Put another way, giving developing nations access to information is the long term solution...food aid is the short term one.
I will merely quote Churchill here:
The United States invariably does the right thing, after having exhausted every other alternative.
Carbon never harmed anyone?! Are you kidding!? How much carbon is in a bullet? How much of a bomb's explosiveness is due to carbon reactions? I'll tell you: lots. You say Carbon's a dirty word, I'll tell you what: you're right...it is dirty. Have you ever handled powdered carbon, aka graphite? All it does is dirty stuff up. That stuff's nasty. So I think it's appropriate that carbon is a dirty word...it's a dirty, dirty element.
If carbon didn't exist, we'd live in a very different world.
As I mentioned in the Sony article, I'm really curious to know just how much copyright liability Sony (or anyone else) is exposed to by distributing software that's publicly known to be violating copyright. If Sony is aware that the company they're buying it from doesn't have the rights to distribute the software, and Sony then re-distributes it knowingly, can the owners of the copyright nail Sony for infringement also?
I'm quite curious if Sony has any liability here. The outcry has been pretty public, so it will be hard for Sony to say they were unaware of the claims of ownership by third parties. Does that make Sony's distribution of the software (presumably without permission of the people who had their code used in Green Dam) willful violation of copyright?
Workload manager: able to on the fly change how much resources are allocated to images AND (this is the cool thing, cause other VMs do that) give it goal times for operations. As in: Complete this task in 1/100th of a second, and it will allocate, on the fly, for that to happen, and it will guarantee it.
The Halting Problem would like a word with you about this one.
Oh, they exist. You're right that they're not as widespread as regular ones, since the hardware and software world is much more diverse. But, they are there. For example, there was a talk at blackhat 2007 about them (slides). One interesting side part of that talk for me was the question of how to research a cell phone virus without risking infecting the production network. (The answer: one hell of a Farraday cage around the lab.)
But, if they make the labs safe, where will the great stories (like pouring liquid nitrogen down a drain, or projectile canisters) come from? C'mon, someone has to serve as an example to everyone else...
why not fund to send the nuclear waste into space
It's a question of risk management. Is the risk of launching waste into orbit greater than the risk of keeping it around?
The biggest risk in launching stuff is the middle bit where it's being launched. To use a known example, the shuttle has run a 1-2% catastrophic failure rate over its lifetime (reference)...are we okay with one out of every hundred launches of nuclear waste becoming the equivalent of a dirty bomb? The answer so far has been no. (and making the containers more explosion-proof makes the entire launch vehicle far heavier, making the whole thing much less economical.)
Or, if you prefer the snarky answer: yeah, let's put lots of highly radioactive materials on top of an enormous pile of explosives. That's a good idea.