If I show the RIAA how to use Win-G to screencap Youtube videos can they DMCA the Windows source code?
93 posts • joined 30 Jun 2010
RIAA DMCAs GitHub into nuking popular YouTube video download tool, says it can be used to slurp music
These changes are objectively better than the original phrasing; "primary" and "secondary" let you define a proper tree hierarchy ("tertiary" etc.) and block-list / allow-list is more explicit of its function and therefore is easier to understand (especially for non-native English speakers).
How can that possibly work?
I really can't imagine how this could possibly work. It surely can't be listening in on the CPU because that runs at many gigahertz, well above what you should be able to pick up with a mic. There's ram which is in the 100s of megahertz, but given that's accessed in parallel how could you pick out individual lines? Anyone got any idea what kind of signal they might be using, assuming it does work as they say it does?
We'll be safe
> Usually, it's Windows systems that get hit by ransomware, but a new strain targets Linux systems to extort cash.
But of course, unlike home Windows users, all Linux sysadmins will keep regularly scheduled backups of their server's data and so won't be affected. Right? Right?? :)
Would this have stopped Heartbleed thought? OpenSSL used its own memory handling code, so as Theo de Raadt explains it bypasses many built in memory protection features. http://article.gmane.org/gmane.os.openbsd.misc/211963
As the original quote goes, "OpenSSL has exploit mitigation countermeasures to make sure it's exploitable."
I'm not saying it's aliens, but...
"This was confirmed again in 2013 when fragments of a comet that exploded over Sri Lanka were collected. Analysis of the remains found non-terrestrial life, including a complex, thick-walled microfossil similar to plankton, within the comet's remains."
U wot mate? The fact that this is the first I've heard of that, which should have been the biggest scientific discovery ever, makes me think it must have been debunked pretty quickly.
Re: 600,000 people supposedly have already visited or live on Mars
> Interestingly, there are several different people today who confirm seeing Obama on Mars as a teenager, who were also in the same CIA program. Take it or leave it, I don't care.
We should demand Obama's earth certificate to prove he's not a martian!
Re: In a heart beat
> but ultimately the crew are going to be permanently on a planet with only 38% of Earth's gravity there must be means to simulate 1G in order to maintain normal body function
There apparently hasn't been any research on the effect of low (such as Mars') gravity on the human body, so we have no idea how it affects the body vs microgravity (weightlessness). For all we know the human body may be able to sustain itself indefinitely at 0.4g with little or no ill effect.
Certain-death? I'd say there's an almost zero chance of anyone dying...
... because it's never going to leave the ground! It's either a blatant scam to separate gullible dreamers from their ~$40 application fee, or an even bigger, more elaborate reality TV hoax than Channel 4's Space Cadets.
Actually imagine that, contestants spend 6 months on their "space voyage" (on a ship that conveniently has "gravity generators" or 1g constant acceleration or some other excuse to why they aren't weightless), open the hatch and get ready to step out on to the martian surface only to instead step out in front of a live TV studio audience and find they've been the butt of the world's biggest reality-TV joke!
> The rover also has a couple solar panels to power its control circuitry and some of its basic equipment
I'm pretty sure it doesn't have any solar panels (where are they on the rover? and why waste the extra weight when you have an RTG?). You might be thinking of the cruise stage, which was solar powered...
Re: Why on earth didn't the review cost up silos?
But if you take such a negative prediction of the future then surely the only way to be safe would be a massive nuclear arsenal on par with Russia or the US' current stockpile, after all at some point soon the technology to intercept ballistic missiles will be practical (especially if there is another cold war style arms race) so a sub or two's worth of missiles won't be any guarantee of a strike.
Also I don't care who the report was chaired by, skimming through it it just felt like it was discounting silos with out doing a full cost benefit analysis - if the cost saving was marginal or non-existent then obviously subs would be the better option, if the cost saving was very large then it would be worth considering further in my opinion.
Why on earth didn't the review cost up silos?
Given the nature of the threat that the UK faces (limited size attack from a rogue country rather than an all-out cold-war style nuclear war) having several hardened silos would seem like a sensible enough solution, and after all any nuclear attack on the UK large enough to knock out all silo sites would have a large impact on the rest of Europe from fallout etc. so they're likely to want to get involved. Not to mention the fact that NATO membership guarantees mutual defence.
All in all it seems to me the report has been created simply to "prove" that we should keep Trident rather than actually look at all alternatives.
> requires a mere two kilograms of food to produce one kilogram of what it charmingly refers to as "insect meat", a far better feed-to-food ratio than, for example, a fatted calf, which requires eight kilograms of feed to produce one kilogram of beef
Here's a crazy idea, how about everyone just eats their damn vegetables and we get 2kg from 2kg of food instead of 1kg from 2kg of food?
It's really very simple, all berating-related CO2 is CARBON NEUTRAL. **CARBON NEUTRAL**. ZERO NET GAIN IN ATMOSPHERIC CARBON DIOXIDE LEVELS.
Every single atom of CO2 exhaled CAME FROM THE ATMOSPHERE. Plants take CO2 and turn it into sugars, animals eat those and turn them back into CO2.
The reason fossil fuels are bad is that you're taking CO2 that has been accumulating for millions and millions of years and releasing it all in one go, thus it's a **POSITIVE NET GAIN** ATMOSPHERIC CARBON DIOXIDE LEVELS.
Anyone trying to equate someone's breath with fossil fuels is a LYING HACK FOR THE OIL INDUSTRY.
The only possible link to any greenhouse gas emissions is if you eat slightly more, but again that's only because our food industry uses so much fossil fuel.