So the industry which has most successfully defended against copyright violation* now gets the largest chunk of consumer's spare income, while those least able to defend themselves** see their income dwindle.
Wait, how does this match the conclusion?
* Dynamic content is easy to protect: just put enough of it on your servers that reproducing it all takes a lot of time and effort. Even a couple of weeks is long enough to make lots of money.
** Static content is nigh-on impossible to protect: if you can *see* it, you can rip it.
I don't know how near "near" is, but if a locator for these unpowered tags could work at a range of, say, a few metres, such that I could tag my keys and find them in the morning when they've slipped behind the sofa cushions, that would be pretty killer...
"Trying to pretend otherwise is like making someone stand in front of you on a train track and thinking that, because the train will hit them first, it somehow means you'll be safe"
Okay, Dan, I'm only gonna sing this one more time: Ohhhhhhh, If you want it to be possessive, it's just "I-T-S," but if it's supposed to be a contraction then it's "I-T-apostrophe-S." Scallywag.
...it expands to fill whatever volume you place it in. Now that's a neat way of allowing you to invent statistics. "By not driving to Cornwall, I saved sufficient CO2 to fill seven cubic parsecs of space!"
Someone check my physics here. A battery gives direct, not alternating, current; hence, measuring impedance is just measuring resistance. The current flowing through a circuit is voltage divided by resistance.
So how is measuring the current and voltage any different from measuring the impedance and voltage? (Aside from the method you use, of course - I'm referring to the tangible benefits.)
Perhaps you should conduct a proper survey on use of exclamation marks? I'm thinking options like:
* I'm new here - only just turned up - and what are you guys talking about?
* I'm new here - only joined yesterday - and I think the exclamation marks are hi-larious!
* I'm an oldie - joined two days ago - and I'm already bored of that joke. Enough already.
* I've been here years, and I want to cry every time I see that same, worn-out joke being reused. I can't even escape, since it's on the front page. Please! I love your news. Have mercy!
* I've been here years, and I still laugh at that joke! I also crack up at Tom Jones every time I read it. I own twenty copies because every time I finish, I want to read it again! Unfortunately, the people at the home won't let me buy it any more, so I guess I'll never have another chance. So don't drop the exclamation marks, or I won't have anything to laugh at, ever again.
Gosh, what a witty, insightful and original use of exclamation marks in the title of this post. I hope future articles on Yahoo! follow this convention, because otherwise I might forget this clever jape.
No, they didn't. They released a fix 24 hours after a hacker had already exploited the bug. They had longer than that to fix it. Not that I'm claiming they're slow or anything. But not releasing a patch for months *and* not telling anyone what to exploit seems more responsible than quickly releasing a patch, but giving hackers a fighting chance at exploiting it first.
Why not use the domain the interaction is with as part of the encryption key, as well as the temporary password? The bank will then reject any information sent via a man-in-the-middle, and the man-in-the-middle will not be able to decode said information (as they do not have the temporary password). Still not idiot-proof, but only requires browser support to get there.
Register
24 posts • joined Wednesday 2nd May 2007 14:12 GMT
Preventing copyright violation => more money?
So the industry which has most successfully defended against copyright violation* now gets the largest chunk of consumer's spare income, while those least able to defend themselves** see their income dwindle.
Wait, how does this match the conclusion?
* Dynamic content is easy to protect: just put enough of it on your servers that reproducing it all takes a lot of time and effort. Even a couple of weeks is long enough to make lots of money.
** Static content is nigh-on impossible to protect: if you can *see* it, you can rip it.
Re: Coincidences
"Apparently the real culprit was beef."
Which fact became apparent when they overlaid a chart of beef consumption / wealth.
Find my keys?
I don't know how near "near" is, but if a locator for these unpowered tags could work at a range of, say, a few metres, such that I could tag my keys and find them in the morning when they've slipped behind the sofa cushions, that would be pretty killer...
Gross?
Surely he's 131 shy of gross overloading?
Execution!
"Lester will indeed be executed in true police state style"
Now *that*, we need a picture of...
Re: Hmm...
...and would *never* lie about their age...
isa
The IT angle:
Airline <--- British Airways ---> Joke
Hulk?
"Trying to pretend otherwise is like making someone stand in front of you on a train track and thinking that, because the train will hit them first, it somehow means you'll be safe"
If they're The Hulk, you probably are...
Impressive
Wow. That's impressively offensive. You've outdone yourself, Lester.
Icon being a prediction of the future...
re: he failed to address one issue
@chris: and doesn't involve fossil fuels (scarce), nuclear (scary) or renewables (kill birds), and doesn't involve us not driving (scary again).
Yep, that's a pretty neat summary of all the discussions on this topic at El Reg.
Mine's the fleece.
Error
Apparently, a Norris is only 0.1 kilonewtons - clearly false! Chuck could kill Newton a hundred times over.
What's that? Yes, that's mine. Ta.
So...
Is superparamagnetism exothermadocious?
MS scammers
Darn it! When I first read that title, I assumed the high-up MS executives were finally getting their comeuppance...
Apparently sarcasm is only allowed on the Register
Because when an FT writer uses it, people take him literally and mock him.
Jeez.
"it's functionality"
Okay, Dan, I'm only gonna sing this one more time: Ohhhhhhh, If you want it to be possessive, it's just "I-T-S," but if it's supposed to be a contraction then it's "I-T-apostrophe-S." Scallywag.
CO2 is a gas...
...it expands to fill whatever volume you place it in. Now that's a neat way of allowing you to invent statistics. "By not driving to Cornwall, I saved sufficient CO2 to fill seven cubic parsecs of space!"
Current versus impedance?
Someone check my physics here. A battery gives direct, not alternating, current; hence, measuring impedance is just measuring resistance. The current flowing through a circuit is voltage divided by resistance.
So how is measuring the current and voltage any different from measuring the impedance and voltage? (Aside from the method you use, of course - I'm referring to the tangible benefits.)
A survey?
Perhaps you should conduct a proper survey on use of exclamation marks? I'm thinking options like:
* I'm new here - only just turned up - and what are you guys talking about?
* I'm new here - only joined yesterday - and I think the exclamation marks are hi-larious!
* I'm an oldie - joined two days ago - and I'm already bored of that joke. Enough already.
* I've been here years, and I want to cry every time I see that same, worn-out joke being reused. I can't even escape, since it's on the front page. Please! I love your news. Have mercy!
* I've been here years, and I still laugh at that joke! I also crack up at Tom Jones every time I read it. I own twenty copies because every time I finish, I want to read it again! Unfortunately, the people at the home won't let me buy it any more, so I guess I'll never have another chance. So don't drop the exclamation marks, or I won't have anything to laugh at, ever again.
See how unbiased they are?
Third use?
I wonder if it can serve a third purpose - as an angle grinder?
Title
After five years, Luke and Andy still find the same joke funny. That explains syndicated cartoons.
Glad my fellow regulars are capable of detecting sarcasm, by the way.
What! A! Funny! Hack! You! Are!
Gosh, what a witty, insightful and original use of exclamation marks in the title of this post. I hope future articles on Yahoo! follow this convention, because otherwise I might forget this clever jape.
@Lloyd
Couldn't you make lemonade by advertising "superb T-Mobile phone reception throughout the house and garden" or something? ;)
re: Model?
"Bad Yahoo! Released a fix in 24 hrs"
No, they didn't. They released a fix 24 hours after a hacker had already exploited the bug. They had longer than that to fix it. Not that I'm claiming they're slow or anything. But not releasing a patch for months *and* not telling anyone what to exploit seems more responsible than quickly releasing a patch, but giving hackers a fighting chance at exploiting it first.
Use domain as part of encryption?
Why not use the domain the interaction is with as part of the encryption key, as well as the temporary password? The bank will then reject any information sent via a man-in-the-middle, and the man-in-the-middle will not be able to decode said information (as they do not have the temporary password). Still not idiot-proof, but only requires browser support to get there.