"Rap came from where?" The black ghettos of large US cities even if it was an update of talking/walking blues. Essentially it's rhyming slang to music and scratches. The cockney's in London latched onto it because they've been doing rhyming slang for centuries as well.
"Soul music came from where?"
Essentially it's secularized hymn singing styles from black churches in the southern USA. Sometimes sped up, sometimes not.
Anyway, they have no idea of culture just who they can screw to get more money in their pockets. For now copyright perversion is the easiest way.
I, too, am curious to know where these top guys are who are pulling down so little.
It's not like the actors and musicians so slavishly followed by the gossip mags, "entertainment" shows and so on are what the vast majority of us would call poor. If that is the case then I suspect something other than a lack of copyright is the problem.
But that's what we have now except that the the salary would be more like a dishwasher in a diner than the average software developer for the vast majority.
It's a change, though I can't call it a good one nor do I think it likely to break the logjam. I could be surprised.
The reality is that Google is now defending it's position in wireless as a compromise while laying out what it sees and the reasons why. The problem is that while doing this they're being rather disingenuous about it saying that what they want is to allow for new serves and applications in wireless space without cannibalizing "open Internet" (whatever that is) space. The problem there is that these services currently exist on the Internet and don't seem to be causing much of a bandwidth fuss.
And, in spite of, or maybe because of, Google's agreement with this arrangement wireless will remain forever a private playground no matter what Google says.
What it does is create an open/public/something Internet for wireline and a collection of private Internets for wireless. In fact, I'd go a step further and say it creates a series of permanent private networks whose only relationship with the Internet is that it's carried over TCP/IP. Likely with carrier/vendor lockin. And the giggle that Congress may step in in the future to address "consumer" complaints of abuse.
IF you buy that it's a good idea. If you find that frightening or a roll back in time to such things as Compu$pend and other private networks it should scare you to death.
Me? I'm scared to death that this has the distinct possibility of killing/fracturing the goose that lays the golden eggs not about net neutrality should something like this go ahead.
It's a valid write up for this site. After all it's called Tech and dirt!
While The Hill didn't go over the top about this paper I can guarantee that sites like ZDNet and CNET will go completely spare about it with their "security" bloggers writing up long and involved alerts without even looking at the actual reports. (They've done that enough that I don't believe a word from them any more.)
After reading the paper I'd suggest that the probability of a real world attack by fingertip grease through photography alone is low.
First off they used new sets which were used once, smudged then reused in ideal lighting conditions using unknown high end cameras and lenses. (Weak point guys!).
While the results are what I'd expect, actually, in real life the handset would also be scratched, have wear marks and other things which could cause false positives due to finger "grease" being caught and retained in imperfections on the screen after some use.
To do this remotely would require more than one photo, I'm sure, and probably the use of a telephoto lens or the "close up" button on less expensive cameras which immediately causes distortion on the resulting photo. Further pixilation would occur bringing that photo "close" enough by quick enlargement. You might get a readable pattern but, given the information provided I doubt it. Remember, now, that lighting and other conditions are far from ideal in the real world leading to the need for retakes and so on. (Taking the photo through a window, partially hidden behind a plant or some such thing, exposure length, aperture settings and a whole lot of other things.
It might serve as a good baseline but I can't see it now given what the report does and does not tell me. (Most importantly the brand and model of camera, the brand and model of lens, settings, resulting bit density of the resulting photo, time of day and exact information on the lighting used.)
As others have noted the paper hasn't been subject to peer review, as yet, which opens it's conclusions to further question. Though I can see people grabbing their cheap snapshot cameras and mid to high end SLRs to try to replicate at least some of this.
As others have noted cleaning the screen with wet eyeglass wipes would effectively stop this as well as one's child "breaking" in by following the interesting finger line on the phone. :-)
There's another drawback to this and that's that unless you're being targeted by someone actually looking for information on the set the vast, vast majority of wireless devices are stolen for quick sale to someone else, used for a very short period of time and then disposed of. (Classic pattern is drug addict steals phone -->sells it to dealer for a fix--->dealer uses phone until it's reported missing and is cut off---> dealer tosses the set into the nearest dumpster.)
The only reason I can see for cracking a cell phone is that you are in possession, or so the potential thief thinks, of some extremely valuable information they can use very quickly, say the alarm code for your house, some valuable commercial or government information and so on.
Thing is, of course, is that don't leave your life information on the not-so-smart phone! AKA don't be stupid.
As for what I'd do with Android is I'd override the requirement to use the pattern password and use a key or other password entry.
BTW, it's interesting that we're still told to hide our PINs as we use ATMs or debit/credit cards because of a fantastic weakness there. All machines give audio feedback every time a key is pressed. Guess what? Within a few Hz they're exactly the same on every machine. Should I try to muzzle them?!!!
Aside from the, or perhaps part of, the ethics of all of this is that if Oracle didn't make a good faith attempt at licensing before launching this IED then I suspect a court may look at this with some hostility.
You're supposed to make that attempt, or some attempt, to resolve the issue without launching this kind of suit. You don't go to court first.
Google buckling under because it costs less wouldn't be a good thing but then again they sold their soul as they sold the rest of us out when they released their cozy deal with Verizon so anything is possible now from the former "do no evil" company.
I noticed that immediately on the ScribeD plugin and wondered if SCO is finally and really dead and does David Boies need another source of income now?
Just a minor point but isn't Wal-Mart the planet's largest retailer? Gobs of money and power and all that good stuff some Anonymous Cowards wish they had?
I suspect that it means we're agreeing with the sentiment expressed by the AC above the TAM AC.
It's possible someone could go off the deep end. I'd hope not. Nor do I see the remark as attempting to trigger such an event rather than a what if specultation though the prices seem high for Nevada. ;-)
"Open source’s record of innovation is mainly the sort of incremental innovation that you would expect from a large company."
Oh, like Microsoft?
You probably wouldn't notice it if you saw it on your MS desktop so you have no idea if there's been a revolutionary application or not.
"it has not lead to any revolutionary applications."
Still, let me introduce you to one that you use every day whether you realize it or not. The Apache Web Server.
"Open source has not transformed the software industry"
Really? I wonder what MS has been so worried about all these years then?
Don't work much in networking or backbones do you? Don't work much on large scale commercial applications such as dynamic layout and typesetting like newspapers do you? Let me introduce LaTeX.
"it has shifted wealth from software inventors to finance and management."
I'd suggest that after IBM, Microsoft and Apple have been more responsible for that than Open Source has ever been. Not because they're particularly evil rather that after a certain point that's the way the market works. Programmers move out of the basement to become cubicle drones in large corporations unless they're highly skilled and can sell their skills to the highest bidder. Apparently you're not one of them.
The point you're missing is that it's only U.S. courts who are awarding damages beyond the GNP of, say, Rhode Island, for minor infringement.
Courts in Canada, the UK, Australia etc wouldn't dream of those kind of damages simply because the punishment doesn't fit the "crime". That and the plantiff hasn't a hope in hell of ever collecting.
That;s not the point of the observations made in the article or the study.
It's that weaker copyright creates a more competitive and vibrant book market in a jurisdiction regardless of where ink meets paper regardless of where that occurs.
It's also about the fact that writers actually earn more as a group when this is the case as opposed to where copyright is strong.
Might this explain why the book industry is in trouble? The elite and those with pretentions to that (see Monty Pyton: Upper Middle Class Twit Walk for more details) limits the market to a few rather than all of society. You can charge more per copy but if your market is reduced to a small percentage of the population no matter what you're gonna sell less and earn less over all.
It's clear by now that all governments around the world think of things like copyright, patents and too big to fail as more important that actual human beings as do most legislatures.
Missing people, cold cases? DNA analysis? Bah! They're just people, who cares? Call me when Disney or BofA or someone important stubs they're toe, not real people!
I suspect that at some point all of us do things for "free" IRL (as in off internet) for free without even thinking about it.
We cut a neighbour's lawn while they're on vacation or then their mower is broken, we help was a car, we help throw a garage sale and the list is endless. Not big things. Little things.
Fewer 18 to 24 year olds self identifying as bloggers? So? The things they may have done on blogs in the past they do on Facebook.
Only one in four readers leave comments on news or blog sites? I'll disagree with the observation that this is similar to newspapers or magazines where one in four is considered an avalanche. So participation seems to be up there.
Giving commenter stars and dancing icons? (HuffPo needs to add some quality to how they do it, btw, rather than sheer volume.) These guys don't seem to go back to the days of forums where the same thing used to and still does happen with the few (specialized) ones left.
Less than 5% of blogs started continue? Even 5% of a million is a large number and there are more than a million internet users globally.
Wikipedia stalling? I'll agree with Hephaestus on that one that it's reaching a critical mass and agree that his motivation of correcting outlandish errors is probably what motivates most contributors there. Either way it may not need the mass of contributors it once did due to "completeness".
I could go on. It doesn't matter what the motivation is in one respect it's human nature to do things for "free". If we get a dancing icon that's cool but most of us would continue to regardless.
For some of us it's about doing something we are good at and love that is different than the day job. Say the lawn cutter down the street who has a fascinating view of theology, the assembly line worker who has an insight into economics, the cubical prisoner in a corporate office who does art for fun and posts it. The economist who has become something of an expert on gardening. (Could be Mike, you know.)
Not everything we do is for money. And what the authors of this article miss is that a lot of things on the web are as ephemeral as their article is, some less so because they make far more sense in the long term, so it comes and it goes. The same as it ever was in human affairs, economics and society.
One in 10 sounds tiny. 600 million, the one in ten of 6 billion humans, is far more impressive and something these guys won't touch cause it disproves their point.
Not in terms of the announcement but something I read in a book a long time ago that pointed out that when the explanation for the public is longer than the proposal to the regulating agency that the public had better beware.
The book is called When In Doubt Mumble which is a guide to the language and habits of Homo Bureaucratis which has existed since Sumer and Akkad and really got going in the Egyptian First Kingdom and has been with us ever since.
Anyway, I'm going to strongly disagree with Mike that this "agreement" is anything but Google throwing it's "never do/be evil" slogan under the bus along with those who were fool enough to believe it.
In exchange for a virtually unregulated wireline internet we get a replacement a mobile "quasi-internet" which is really a private network(s). Sort of Compuspend reborn. This hardly makes things any better as it creates two classes of internet users and I'm as sure as I am that the sky is blue that they won't be compatible.
And no, it's not just a way of Verizon saying "if it ain't broke don't fix it" with respect to wireline it's they're way of getting out of running fibre to the house by making a bet the farm bet on mobile sets. It's Verizon's way of saying "Hallelujah, we don't have to fix wireline we just found our way out of it!"
If you think the antenna whine was loud over the iPhone just wait till the next sunspot increase due in the next year or two ramps up and see what it does to the celluar spectrum!
At the end of the day Verizon gets their two tier "internet" and we get diddly. Dunno what Google got. Hope it was lots.
On the post: Which Is Better: A Tiny Number Of Creators Hitting The Jackpot... Or Many Making A Living Wage?
Re:
"Soul music came from where?"
Essentially it's secularized hymn singing styles from black churches in the southern USA. Sometimes sped up, sometimes not.
Anyway, they have no idea of culture just who they can screw to get more money in their pockets. For now copyright perversion is the easiest way.
On the post: Which Is Better: A Tiny Number Of Creators Hitting The Jackpot... Or Many Making A Living Wage?
Re: Re: Re:
It's not like the actors and musicians so slavishly followed by the gossip mags, "entertainment" shows and so on are what the vast majority of us would call poor. If that is the case then I suspect something other than a lack of copyright is the problem.
On the post: Which Is Better: A Tiny Number Of Creators Hitting The Jackpot... Or Many Making A Living Wage?
Re:
On the post: Google vs. Google On Wireless Net Neutrality
Re: Corporations don't exist for their sake, but for public benefit.
On the post: Google vs. Google On Wireless Net Neutrality
Re:
The reality is that Google is now defending it's position in wireless as a compromise while laying out what it sees and the reasons why. The problem is that while doing this they're being rather disingenuous about it saying that what they want is to allow for new serves and applications in wireless space without cannibalizing "open Internet" (whatever that is) space. The problem there is that these services currently exist on the Internet and don't seem to be causing much of a bandwidth fuss.
And, in spite of, or maybe because of, Google's agreement with this arrangement wireless will remain forever a private playground no matter what Google says.
What it does is create an open/public/something Internet for wireline and a collection of private Internets for wireless. In fact, I'd go a step further and say it creates a series of permanent private networks whose only relationship with the Internet is that it's carried over TCP/IP. Likely with carrier/vendor lockin. And the giggle that Congress may step in in the future to address "consumer" complaints of abuse.
IF you buy that it's a good idea. If you find that frightening or a roll back in time to such things as Compu$pend and other private networks it should scare you to death.
Me? I'm scared to death that this has the distinct possibility of killing/fracturing the goose that lays the golden eggs not about net neutrality should something like this go ahead.
On the post: Journalism Warning Labels: This Article Is Just A Press Release Copied & Pasted
Re: Re: yup
On the post: Research Claims Hackers Could Figure Out Your Smartphone Password Via Screen Smudges
Re: Disappointed
While The Hill didn't go over the top about this paper I can guarantee that sites like ZDNet and CNET will go completely spare about it with their "security" bloggers writing up long and involved alerts without even looking at the actual reports. (They've done that enough that I don't believe a word from them any more.)
After reading the paper I'd suggest that the probability of a real world attack by fingertip grease through photography alone is low.
First off they used new sets which were used once, smudged then reused in ideal lighting conditions using unknown high end cameras and lenses. (Weak point guys!).
While the results are what I'd expect, actually, in real life the handset would also be scratched, have wear marks and other things which could cause false positives due to finger "grease" being caught and retained in imperfections on the screen after some use.
To do this remotely would require more than one photo, I'm sure, and probably the use of a telephoto lens or the "close up" button on less expensive cameras which immediately causes distortion on the resulting photo. Further pixilation would occur bringing that photo "close" enough by quick enlargement. You might get a readable pattern but, given the information provided I doubt it. Remember, now, that lighting and other conditions are far from ideal in the real world leading to the need for retakes and so on. (Taking the photo through a window, partially hidden behind a plant or some such thing, exposure length, aperture settings and a whole lot of other things.
It might serve as a good baseline but I can't see it now given what the report does and does not tell me. (Most importantly the brand and model of camera, the brand and model of lens, settings, resulting bit density of the resulting photo, time of day and exact information on the lighting used.)
As others have noted the paper hasn't been subject to peer review, as yet, which opens it's conclusions to further question. Though I can see people grabbing their cheap snapshot cameras and mid to high end SLRs to try to replicate at least some of this.
As others have noted cleaning the screen with wet eyeglass wipes would effectively stop this as well as one's child "breaking" in by following the interesting finger line on the phone. :-)
There's another drawback to this and that's that unless you're being targeted by someone actually looking for information on the set the vast, vast majority of wireless devices are stolen for quick sale to someone else, used for a very short period of time and then disposed of. (Classic pattern is drug addict steals phone -->sells it to dealer for a fix--->dealer uses phone until it's reported missing and is cut off---> dealer tosses the set into the nearest dumpster.)
The only reason I can see for cracking a cell phone is that you are in possession, or so the potential thief thinks, of some extremely valuable information they can use very quickly, say the alarm code for your house, some valuable commercial or government information and so on.
Thing is, of course, is that don't leave your life information on the not-so-smart phone! AKA don't be stupid.
As for what I'd do with Android is I'd override the requirement to use the pattern password and use a key or other password entry.
BTW, it's interesting that we're still told to hide our PINs as we use ATMs or debit/credit cards because of a fantastic weakness there. All machines give audio feedback every time a key is pressed. Guess what? Within a few Hz they're exactly the same on every machine. Should I try to muzzle them?!!!
On the post: Patenting The Geophysical Center Of Europe?
On the post: Oracle's First Big Move With Sun? Use Sun's Patents To Sue Google
It'll be interesting
You're supposed to make that attempt, or some attempt, to resolve the issue without launching this kind of suit. You don't go to court first.
Google buckling under because it costs less wouldn't be a good thing but then again they sold their soul as they sold the rest of us out when they released their cozy deal with Verizon so anything is possible now from the former "do no evil" company.
On the post: Oracle's First Big Move With Sun? Use Sun's Patents To Sue Google
Re:
Sadly this kinda crud is nothing new for Oracle.
On the post: Why Are Entertainment Industry Spokespeople So Scared To Debate Critics?
Re: Re: Re: why?
On the post: Righthaven Continues To Stretch The Meaning Of Copyright Law In Filing Lawsuits
Re: Re: Re:
It's possible someone could go off the deep end. I'd hope not. Nor do I see the remark as attempting to trigger such an event rather than a what if specultation though the prices seem high for Nevada. ;-)
ttfn
John
On the post: Why Openness Leads To Greater Innovation: The Friction Of The Hold Up Problem
Re: The Investment Problem
Oh, like Microsoft?
You probably wouldn't notice it if you saw it on your MS desktop so you have no idea if there's been a revolutionary application or not.
"it has not lead to any revolutionary applications."
Still, let me introduce you to one that you use every day whether you realize it or not. The Apache Web Server.
"Open source has not transformed the software industry"
Really? I wonder what MS has been so worried about all these years then?
Don't work much in networking or backbones do you? Don't work much on large scale commercial applications such as dynamic layout and typesetting like newspapers do you? Let me introduce LaTeX.
"it has shifted wealth from software inventors to finance and management."
I'd suggest that after IBM, Microsoft and Apple have been more responsible for that than Open Source has ever been. Not because they're particularly evil rather that after a certain point that's the way the market works. Programmers move out of the basement to become cubicle drones in large corporations unless they're highly skilled and can sell their skills to the highest bidder. Apparently you're not one of them.
I think it's called the free market.
On the post: Why Openness Leads To Greater Innovation: The Friction Of The Hold Up Problem
Re: Re: Re: I don't get it.
You don't!!!!!!! :-)
On the post: Google And Verizon Announce... Um... Something That Appears To Mean Nothing
Re: Re: This takes me back some...
Haven't they heard Mike say paywalls don't work?
On the post: Rupert Murdoch, Pirate? Gave Away Jimi Hendrix CD Without Clearing The Rights
Re: Re:
Courts in Canada, the UK, Australia etc wouldn't dream of those kind of damages simply because the punishment doesn't fit the "crime". That and the plantiff hasn't a hope in hell of ever collecting.
On the post: Yet Another Study Shows How Copyright Can Hinder The Spread Of Knowledge
Re: What is this
It's that weaker copyright creates a more competitive and vibrant book market in a jurisdiction regardless of where ink meets paper regardless of where that occurs.
It's also about the fact that writers actually earn more as a group when this is the case as opposed to where copyright is strong.
Might this explain why the book industry is in trouble? The elite and those with pretentions to that (see Monty Pyton: Upper Middle Class Twit Walk for more details) limits the market to a few rather than all of society. You can charge more per copy but if your market is reduced to a small percentage of the population no matter what you're gonna sell less and earn less over all.
On the post: FBI Prioritizes Copyright Issues; Not So Concerned About Missing Persons
Re: Re: Priorities
Missing people, cold cases? DNA analysis? Bah! They're just people, who cares? Call me when Disney or BofA or someone important stubs they're toe, not real people!
/sarcasm off -- I think.
On the post: Newsweek Insists People Don't Do Stuff For Free... And Then Shows Why People Do Stuff For Free
We don't do things for free, eh?
We cut a neighbour's lawn while they're on vacation or then their mower is broken, we help was a car, we help throw a garage sale and the list is endless. Not big things. Little things.
Fewer 18 to 24 year olds self identifying as bloggers? So? The things they may have done on blogs in the past they do on Facebook.
Only one in four readers leave comments on news or blog sites? I'll disagree with the observation that this is similar to newspapers or magazines where one in four is considered an avalanche. So participation seems to be up there.
Giving commenter stars and dancing icons? (HuffPo needs to add some quality to how they do it, btw, rather than sheer volume.) These guys don't seem to go back to the days of forums where the same thing used to and still does happen with the few (specialized) ones left.
Less than 5% of blogs started continue? Even 5% of a million is a large number and there are more than a million internet users globally.
Wikipedia stalling? I'll agree with Hephaestus on that one that it's reaching a critical mass and agree that his motivation of correcting outlandish errors is probably what motivates most contributors there. Either way it may not need the mass of contributors it once did due to "completeness".
I could go on. It doesn't matter what the motivation is in one respect it's human nature to do things for "free". If we get a dancing icon that's cool but most of us would continue to regardless.
For some of us it's about doing something we are good at and love that is different than the day job. Say the lawn cutter down the street who has a fascinating view of theology, the assembly line worker who has an insight into economics, the cubical prisoner in a corporate office who does art for fun and posts it. The economist who has become something of an expert on gardening. (Could be Mike, you know.)
Not everything we do is for money. And what the authors of this article miss is that a lot of things on the web are as ephemeral as their article is, some less so because they make far more sense in the long term, so it comes and it goes. The same as it ever was in human affairs, economics and society.
One in 10 sounds tiny. 600 million, the one in ten of 6 billion humans, is far more impressive and something these guys won't touch cause it disproves their point.
On the post: Google And Verizon Announce... Um... Something That Appears To Mean Nothing
This takes me back some...
The book is called When In Doubt Mumble which is a guide to the language and habits of Homo Bureaucratis which has existed since Sumer and Akkad and really got going in the Egyptian First Kingdom and has been with us ever since.
Anyway, I'm going to strongly disagree with Mike that this "agreement" is anything but Google throwing it's "never do/be evil" slogan under the bus along with those who were fool enough to believe it.
In exchange for a virtually unregulated wireline internet we get a replacement a mobile "quasi-internet" which is really a private network(s). Sort of Compuspend reborn. This hardly makes things any better as it creates two classes of internet users and I'm as sure as I am that the sky is blue that they won't be compatible.
And no, it's not just a way of Verizon saying "if it ain't broke don't fix it" with respect to wireline it's they're way of getting out of running fibre to the house by making a bet the farm bet on mobile sets. It's Verizon's way of saying "Hallelujah, we don't have to fix wireline we just found our way out of it!"
If you think the antenna whine was loud over the iPhone just wait till the next sunspot increase due in the next year or two ramps up and see what it does to the celluar spectrum!
At the end of the day Verizon gets their two tier "internet" and we get diddly. Dunno what Google got. Hope it was lots.
Next >>