80bower writes "Looks like Microsoft is going to allow an MIT student to display security flaws in the XBOX and won't use the DMCA to stop him. Read about it at EFF via Politech." Microsoft deserves kudos for this. But it is a sad state of affairs when people deserve kudos for NOT doing things.
No shit, man. I read the line "Microsoft deserves kudos for this" and I think "oh, thank jebus, they're finally growing up" and then I read the last line and my relief was ripped away.
6 months from now they'll post a story like "Bill Gates sacrifices self to save boat full of children and puppies" and the editors will find a way to make us hate him for it. Like his shoes weren't environmentally sound or some shit.
Oh, and the reason they don't care is because no ones purchased an Xbox in 4 months.
-- Finally, math books without any of that base 6 crap in them.
We don't have to hate _everything_ they do.. I mean, I dislike Windows for asthetic reasons. I dislike their business practices. That doesn't mean I have to hate everything about them, or disapprove of them when they are doing something good.
If we mock and hate them when they do good things, then they will feel that there is no pleasing us, and will thus ignore everything we have to say. I'd rather have a small voice than none at all.
I was going to commit mass murder, taunt cute little kittens with an open tin of tuna buy not let them have any, run around naked in public, and park on double yellow lines.
But I did none of that. So does this make me a saint? I hope not.
Microsoft decided not to use a totally OTT piece of legislation. They do not deserve kudos, but they don't deserve to be mocked (any more than usual).
If anyone deserves kudos it's the EFF for encouraging huge marketing machines like Microsoft to do the moral thing.
-- Do you mind, your karma has just run over my dogma.
6 months from now they'll post a story like "Bill Gates sacrifices self to save boat full of children and puppies" and the editors will find a way to make us hate him for it. Like his shoes weren't environmentally sound or some shit.
Yet today's headline is akin to "Bill Gates decides NOT to squeese trigger on gun aimed at puppy's head." A Slashdot editor points out that while this is all good of Bill, the real issue is the gun itself. You decide its further proof that Slashdot editors are out to get Bill.
My comment was just centered around the notion that they couldn't just make their compliment and leave well enough alone. They had every right to sue, and didn't, which was pretty nifty in my book.
I cannot express in words the great feeling I get knowing that I have the maturity, perspective, and humility to know that should the day come that the DMCA gets everything it wants, and my warez collection goes bye-bye and I can no longer burn cd's for any purpose, I'll shrug, think about some people in the world that are starving or getting shot at or watching their parents hauled off to some death camp and think "Well, if I bitch about this and call unfairness, I'll really be nothing but a whiny bitch that thinks his problems mean shit in this world". It's a really awesome feeling, you should try it.
-- Finally, math books without any of that base 6 crap in them.
My comment was just centered around the notion that they couldn't just make their compliment and leave well enough alone. They had every right to sue, and didn't, which was pretty nifty in my book.
Again - you miss the point. Its all good that Microsoft did The Right Thing but the issue at hand is that they had, as you put it, "every right to sue" in the first place. Its amazing how those with apparent pro-Microsoft leanings feel that this is some kind of dig against Microsoft. Re-read the comment. Its not.
I cannot express in words the great feeling I get knowing that I have the maturity, perspective, and humility to know that should the day come that the DMCA gets everything it wants, and my warez collection goes bye-bye and I can no longer burn cd's for any purpose, I'll shrug, think about some people in the world that are starving or getting shot at or watching their parents hauled off to some death camp and think "Well, if I bitch about this and call unfairness, I'll really be nothing but a whiny bitch that thinks his problems mean shit in this world". It's a really awesome feeling, you should try it.
I'm glad you feel great about it. Throughout history, there are always people who manage to justify the removal of theirs (or other's) rights. They come up with various justifications or label inaction as a kind of moral high ground. You can be rest assured that there has been a long history of your type logic. But don't kid yourself - its not maturity, perspective, NOR humility. It is the role of sycophant, apologist, or... at best... the tragicly passive.
The world's issues of human rights, hunger, and power struggles have little to do with the issues surrounding the DMCA. True. But then, giving up your right to copy a CD will not end world hunger. And the fact that there is civil war somewhere in the world does not detract from the importance of fair use - its still all about money, control, and power. Try to maintain some of that perspective you claim to hold.
Please don't speak to me of the moral highground. 99.9% of these self-proclaimed slashdot freedom fighters who love to speak of the evils of the DMCA are so misguided it's sad. They, possibly you, love to ramble on about something boils down to something as pathetic and trivial as the inability or lack of desire to purchase their software and music. People, like me, who can afford to buy pretty much an cd or software package we desire(which isn't a lot, I maybe buy 1 game/software app and 1 cd a week) really don't care about the DMCA. I look at all these warez groups with their extremely clever and impressive tactics and then I see them get out-done by the DMCA they start bitching about unfairness. It's like watching 5 year olds throw dirt clods and then whining about sand in the eye.
-- Finally, math books without any of that base 6 crap in them.
Re:What the?
by
edrugtrader
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
you are obviously not a marketing major...
they are getting FREE PUBLICITY to the slashdot crowd... you know, the people that actually OWN these game systems?
and WHAT slashdot reader, WOULDN'T want to buy an M$ product to bring it home, run the exploit, and LAUGH at how dumb those M$ coders are?
plus, M$ gets the bug described IN DETAIL, DEMONSTRATED, and probably a solution described or maybe even created... all for FREE?!
WHAT DOES MICROSOFT HAVE TO GAIN FROM THIS??? what DON'T they have to gain from this?
This is bad. The only reason i can imagine that microsoft would do this is to solidify their argument for Palladium, or whatever the next incantation of it will be. By showing how the DMCA is ineffective in protecting against reverse-engineering and such, microsoft is trying to sneak their version of copyprotection in the "back door". Those guys (M$) don't do anything unless it will get them money. Never forget that, lest you be become assimilated. Remember....
Well... I suppose that by not attempting to sue this guy, the DMCA won't get struck down yet for being an unconscienable threat to legitimate study and free speech.
-- It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
Re:What the?
by
uncoveror
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
Microsoft gains some good PR, and avoids bringing the test case that could topple the DMCA in the Supreme Court, in case they do want to use the DMCA someday. They aren't stupid, like the RIAA.
-- The Uncoveror: It's the real news.
Freedom of Speech: then and now
by
Dr.+Awktagon
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
in 1997: freedom of speech was understood by reading the following:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or
prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or
of the press;
in 2002: freedom of speech is understood by reading the following:
With the help of Boston College law professor Joe Liu, EFF worked with Huang, Abelson, and MIT administrators to analyze the legal issues and draft letters notifying Microsoft of Huang's research findings and intended publication...
Microsoft told Huang and Abelson that while it might prefer that the paper not be published, it would be inappropriate to ask MIT to withhold the paper.
"I was afraid to submit my research for peer review until after the EFF's efforts to clear potential legal restraints."
Welcome to America kids! If you're lucky, you'll get permission to publish your paper too!
Perhaps if you wear a colorful, fanciful hat, decorated with bells and chimes, and prance about most amusingly, the King will pity you and grant your wish.
Re:Freedom of Speech: then and now
by
Planesdragon
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
Welcome to America kids! If you're lucky, you'll get permission to publish your paper too!
Go back and read the first amendment. Note the subject.
CONGRESS--and by extension, the government--cannot abridge your freedom of speech, aside from military or criminal reasons. And for a lot of things, not even then.
PRIVATE PARTIES, like MIT and Microsoft, can do whatever the hell they please, up to the point where they're a goverment.
If Microsoft owns a town, they can't made a law abridging speech there. They can only let employees live there, and make the employees know that they're fired if they belittle MS (and deal with the PR backlash that does), but they can't make a law.
Think this is bad now? Try living under a real king, who can kill you just on a whim. Corporate politics are a light cold compared to the absolute void that we might find if the government wasn't restrained as it.
Private people--heck, if we make it so no one could tell anyone else to shut up, life would be like an early AOL chatroom that you could never log out of.
Re:Freedom of Speech: then and now
by
dR.fuZZo
·
· Score: 5, Interesting
CONGRESS--and by extension, the government--cannot abridge your freedom of speech, aside from military or criminal reasons.
Uhm, well, something is considered criminal if the Congress passes a law saying it's against the law. So, in other words, what you're saying is: Congress can't abridge your freedom of speech, except for when they abridge your freedom of speech.
I wanted to mock your post, but, unfortunately, it seems to be dead on.
-- -- dR.fuZZo
Re:Freedom of Speech: then and now
by
Elwood+P+Dowd
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
As two other respondents have noted, you are exactly wrong.
You are correct: private parties are not bound by the declaration of independence. You are incorrect: Microsoft really can't restrict your freedom of speech.
The reason for this apparent contradiction is that Microsoft cannot make laws. How would Microsoft limit your freedom of speech? By arresting you? All they could do would be to sue you if you damaged them, or make business arrangements to mess with your life. That's what AOL does. They kick you out of the chat room. They can't stop you from swearing on someone else's dime.
In this particular case, Microsoft is not the party accused of restricting freedom of speech. Since this student isn't using MS resources to make his speech, they would have no grounds at all. The DMCA is a law passed by the federal government. The federal government is restricting freedom of speech. Just like copyright. The constitution makes allowance for both the DMCA and regular copyright, however.
Article 1, section 8, clause 8: "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries"
So I think it's pretty clear that the DMCA has grounds in the US Constitution. But it's not because MS can limit your freedom of speech. They can't. Of course, I don't think the DMCA has good enough grounds in the Constitution, given the absurd ramifications. Some day, we may see what the Supreme Court thinks.
--
There are no trails. There are no trees out here.
Re:Freedom of Speech: then and now
by
WNight
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
Wouldn't be hard to do actually. Treason and likely other similar crimes have the death penalty.
Now, all they'd need to do was say that anyone who committed terrorism against his home nation is committing treason. And of course terrorism would be extended to disabling (or telling someone how to) a security system vital for the "education the nation's youth in the field of eye-hand coordination", or whatever.
There, hacking the XBox or a DVD player (both are protected and to break them would potentially hurt the nation's economy in a serious way) is now terrorism; a supposed attempt to bring the nation to economic ruin, after all MS and the MPAA collective both are a large part of the markets. This terrorism, if committed by a citizen or resident of the US would then be treason, and there's the theoretical death-penalty for it.
And you can see that these half-way laws are both fairly realistic (have they already passed them?) in today's post 9-11 world.
Would anyone actually get put to death? No. But they don't really care as long as you cooperate. Few people actually get charged for DMCA violation now, normally it's enough to threaten. Who would risk it?
I honestly believe that it'd be possible for them to pass laws making DVD hacking technically punishable by the death penatly (even if such that it would never be actually used) inside of a year, with the right campaign contributions.
They probably have been paying attention to the HP fiasco of a couple weeks ago. That was a marketing disaster for HP, and if Microsoft is anything they are good marketers.
If you want to be cynical about it, then you can guess that Microsoft wants to make some truly egregious use of the DMCA further down the road, and they don't want to risk getting the law overturned on a trivial use.
Just like old times...
by
Loki_1929
·
· Score: 3, Interesting
In 800A.D., Charlemagne was crowned by the pope, which showed that the pope had the power to put Charlemagne in charge. Microsoft is simply saying, "you are able to publish this information only because we, the generous and wonderful empire of Microsoft allow it." For them to come out and openly state that they will allow it to be published serves only to make them appear ever more powerful to the general public, in that they make the subtle claim of having power over free speech.
Perhaps they would have won in court and silenced this person, but the flaws he speaks of would have still made it to the net pretty quickly. If they had lost the court battle, the flaws would have been released to the public in about the same amount of time. Either way, Microsoft comes off looking like free speech-killers (Read, bad PR) and the flaws are published. By not challenging release of the information, (and doing so about as publicly as possible), they appear powerful, yet merciful. (Read, good PR).
Unless I'm mistaken, Microsoft did something right here; at least something that's right for them - doesn't make a difference for us.
-- --
"Government is the great fiction through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else."
Re:Just like old times...
by
Osty
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
You said:
For them to come out and openly state that they will allow it to be published serves only to make them appear ever more powerful to the general public, in that they make the subtle claim of having power over free speech.
The article said:
Microsoft told Huang and Abelson that while it might prefer that the paper not be published, it would be inappropriate to ask MIT to withhold the paper.
It seems to me that "it would be inappropriate to ask MIT to withhold the paper" is quite a bit different than "we'll allow you to publish the paper". Microsoft did the Right Thing (tm), in that they recognized that Huang's paper can and should be published without restraint due to the principles of Free Speech. Is it so hard to give kudos where kudos are deserved, even when it's a company that you "hate" ("hate" is rather strong, don't you think? but oh well...)? Why must you try to make Microsoft look bad even when they've done good? If Redhat (for example. Or Sun, or any other Slashdot-favorite company) had done the same thing, you'd be lauding them for doing the Right Thing (tm) by saying it's "inappropriate" to block this, even though they could legally block the paper (hey, it's not just Microsoft that has that kind of power). Then again, if Redhat/Sun/Oracle/IBM/whoever had actually said, "We'll allow you to publish this, even though we could block it legally," I bet you'd still be crazy nuts happy about it without trying to say that they're doing so only to make themselves look stronger.
Re:Just like old times...
by
wfrp01
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
If they had lost the court battle, the flaws would have been released to the public in about the same amount of time.
If they had lost the court battle, it may be because a court finds the DMCA unconstitutional. That would be much more harmful to MS than letting some insignificant techno-trifle out of the bag. When people openly defy the DMCA, they are challenging the law. Someone is picking a fight with an 800 pound gorilla, and the gorilla is sitting this one out. Microsoft's lawyers have decided to avert risk. That alone speaks volumes about the precariousness of the DMCA's standing.
Yes, I want to buy an xbox just to find the security flaw, exploit it, and laugh, but I'm just a poor college student.
Slashdot is in a sad state of affairs
by
anthony_dipierro
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
But it is a sad state of affairs when people deserve kudos for NOT doing things.
Especially things that they can't legally do anyway. The DMCA does not outlaw displaying security holes.
If it's sad to give kudos, why put someone who gives them on the front page? I guess it passes the "grep Microsoft story.txt" test.
Re:Slashdot is in a sad state of affairs
by
anthony_dipierro
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
The DMCA outlaws the circumenvtion of copyright protection mechanisms, which is what the MIT hacker did. So the DMCA outlaws exactly that.
There is an exception for research, and besides there is no evidence that the hacker circumvented copyright protection mechanisms. In any case, Microsoft has only agreed to let the hacker present his paper, which is not a violation of the DMCA. They haven't agreed to not sue him for circumventing the copyright protection mechanisms in the first place.
Don't cheer yet...
by
KenCrandall
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
I wouldn't quite start cheering yet. I'd be awfully wary of what comes out of this. MS gets a FREE security check of XBOX, and look what they can do with all this:
They can see where all the holes that hackers/modders are exploiting in the console are.
They can "slipstream" secutity updates into future games and break the above.
They get some PR karma for not going after an academic/researcher who is doing benefit for the "public good" (i.e. fixing security holes that could "JEAPORDIZE NATIONAL SECURITY"
They know what works and what doesn't for security in future products.
On the plus side, since they are chosing NOT to invoke the DMCA, they prove that the law is subject to the whim of the very corporations who claimed to be harmed and sponsored the bill in congress (proxied by our loyal Senators, of course!) This kind of ruins the legitimacy of the law, as it transforms the DMCA from "reverse-engineering decryption schemes is always harmful (and hence, illegal) and is a copyright and security threat" to "reverse-engineering decryption schemes is only harmful (and hence illegal) when I SAY it is a copyright and security threat". This is a subtle, but quite big difference. Hopefully, the EFF and ALCU (or other socially-responsible organizations) will pick up on that fact...
With this in mind, I like the fact that MS is doing this. However, I'd hate it to kill the mod-chip business. I'm fully in-favor of us being able to do ANYTHING with ANYTHING we buy (and dammit, if I pay $300 for the XBOX, I own it!) -- Imagine if you couldn't hop-up your car if you wanted to? The DMCA just sucks, in-general, and it sucks even more if companies can just CHOOSE when things are illegal and when they are not.
Cheers,
Ken
Thanks, EFF
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
Ok, that's it. I just donated 25 bucks to the EFF (took about 1 minute). Maybe that's a drop in the bucket, but I wanted to say "thanks" to the folks who actually DO something that everyone else is just talking about.
How about a non-borg icon today?
by
MongooseCN
·
· Score: 3, Funny
Perhaps MS deserves a non-bill-the-borg icon for this story today?
Felten Shockwave
by
limekiller4
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
Microsoft might be driven solely by their obligation to their shareholders (as any company is, unfortunately), but they're not utterly without intelligence.
Suppose someone dies and you know where they stashed $1,000 in cash. You might take that money, but later return it. Why? Did you return it because stealing it was wrong, and you came to this realization? Did you return it because you were afraid of being caught? Maybe you returned it out of guilt. The point is that honor and "good behavior" comes in many flavors which are not immediately obvious to the casual observer.
So do I think that Microsoft did the "right thing?" No way in hell. Do I think they did the "smart thing?" You bet. I think they took one look at the Felten debacle and knew to not play with the academics. I think they know the power of public relations, especially this year.
-- My.02,
Limekiller
Hey, didn't you get your training manual?
by
protein+folder
·
· Score: 3, Funny
"Those damn hack3rs just don't stop. Now they've focused their attention on our XBox. What should we do?"
"Hmmm... let's see... To hack XBox they have to buy it from us, and then they'll be busy on it playing video games instead of hacking our products... is that correct?"
"That's correct sir."
"Okie dokie then... give 'em the greenlight so I can take that vacation I've been wanting to take for the longest time..."
--
eTrade SUCKS
Re:Mac OS X is not UNIX�
by
moof1138
·
· Score: 3, Informative
Slashdot Mirror
...are we pissed at MS today or not?
Only in slashdot are posts of solidarity modded at -1 Redundant, while posts of antagonism are modded as -1 Flamebait.
you are obviously not a marketing major...
they are getting FREE PUBLICITY to the slashdot crowd... you know, the people that actually OWN these game systems?
and WHAT slashdot reader, WOULDN'T want to buy an M$ product to bring it home, run the exploit, and LAUGH at how dumb those M$ coders are?
plus, M$ gets the bug described IN DETAIL, DEMONSTRATED, and probably a solution described or maybe even created... all for FREE?!
WHAT DOES MICROSOFT HAVE TO GAIN FROM THIS??? what DON'T they have to gain from this?
MARIJUANA, SHROOMS, X: ONLINE?! - E
This is bad. The only reason i can imagine that microsoft would do this is to solidify their argument for Palladium, or whatever the next incantation of it will be. By showing how the DMCA is ineffective in protecting against reverse-engineering and such, microsoft is trying to sneak their version of copyprotection in the "back door". Those guys (M$) don't do anything unless it will get them money. Never forget that, lest you be become assimilated. Remember....
Resistance is futile
Flying pigs! Help! I'm being attacked by flying pigs!
Well... I suppose that by not attempting to sue this guy, the DMCA won't get struck down yet for being an unconscienable threat to legitimate study and free speech.
It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
Microsoft gains some good PR, and avoids bringing the test case that could topple the DMCA in the Supreme Court, in case they do want to use the DMCA someday. They aren't stupid, like the RIAA.
The Uncoveror: It's the real news.
in 1997: freedom of speech was understood by reading the following:
in 2002: freedom of speech is understood by reading the following:
Welcome to America kids! If you're lucky, you'll get permission to publish your paper too!
Perhaps if you wear a colorful, fanciful hat, decorated with bells and chimes, and prance about most amusingly, the King will pity you and grant your wish.
They probably have been paying attention to the HP fiasco of a couple weeks ago. That was a marketing disaster for HP, and if Microsoft is anything they are good marketers.
If you want to be cynical about it, then you can guess that Microsoft wants to make some truly egregious use of the DMCA further down the road, and they don't want to risk getting the law overturned on a trivial use.
If tits were wings it'd be flying around.
In 800A.D., Charlemagne was crowned by the pope, which showed that the pope had the power to put Charlemagne in charge. Microsoft is simply saying, "you are able to publish this information only because we, the generous and wonderful empire of Microsoft allow it." For them to come out and openly state that they will allow it to be published serves only to make them appear ever more powerful to the general public, in that they make the subtle claim of having power over free speech.
Perhaps they would have won in court and silenced this person, but the flaws he speaks of would have still made it to the net pretty quickly. If they had lost the court battle, the flaws would have been released to the public in about the same amount of time. Either way, Microsoft comes off looking like free speech-killers (Read, bad PR) and the flaws are published. By not challenging release of the information, (and doing so about as publicly as possible), they appear powerful, yet merciful. (Read, good PR).
Unless I'm mistaken, Microsoft did something right here; at least something that's right for them - doesn't make a difference for us.
-- "Government is the great fiction through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else."
Yes, I want to buy an xbox just to find the security flaw, exploit it, and laugh, but I'm just a poor college student.
But it is a sad state of affairs when people deserve kudos for NOT doing things.
Especially things that they can't legally do anyway. The DMCA does not outlaw displaying security holes.
If it's sad to give kudos, why put someone who gives them on the front page? I guess it passes the "grep Microsoft story.txt" test.
- They can see where all the holes that hackers/modders are exploiting in the console are.
- They can "slipstream" secutity updates into future games and break the above.
- They get some PR karma for not going after an academic/researcher who is doing benefit for the "public good" (i.e. fixing security holes that could "JEAPORDIZE NATIONAL SECURITY"
- They know what works and what doesn't for security in future products.
On the plus side, since they are chosing NOT to invoke the DMCA, they prove that the law is subject to the whim of the very corporations who claimed to be harmed and sponsored the bill in congress (proxied by our loyal Senators, of course!) This kind of ruins the legitimacy of the law, as it transforms the DMCA from "reverse-engineering decryption schemes is always harmful (and hence, illegal) and is a copyright and security threat" to "reverse-engineering decryption schemes is only harmful (and hence illegal) when I SAY it is a copyright and security threat". This is a subtle, but quite big difference. Hopefully, the EFF and ALCU (or other socially-responsible organizations) will pick up on that fact...With this in mind, I like the fact that MS is doing this. However, I'd hate it to kill the mod-chip business. I'm fully in-favor of us being able to do ANYTHING with ANYTHING we buy (and dammit, if I pay $300 for the XBOX, I own it!) -- Imagine if you couldn't hop-up your car if you wanted to? The DMCA just sucks, in-general, and it sucks even more if companies can just CHOOSE when things are illegal and when they are not.
Cheers,
Ken
Ok, that's it. I just donated 25 bucks to the EFF (took about 1 minute). Maybe that's a drop in the bucket, but I wanted to say "thanks" to the folks who actually DO something that everyone else is just talking about.
Perhaps MS deserves a non-bill-the-borg icon for this story today?
Outdoor digital photography, mostly in New Engl
Microsoft might be driven solely by their obligation to their shareholders (as any company is, unfortunately), but they're not utterly without intelligence.
Suppose someone dies and you know where they stashed $1,000 in cash. You might take that money, but later return it. Why? Did you return it because stealing it was wrong, and you came to this realization? Did you return it because you were afraid of being caught? Maybe you returned it out of guilt. The point is that honor and "good behavior" comes in many flavors which are not immediately obvious to the casual observer.
So do I think that Microsoft did the "right thing?" No way in hell. Do I think they did the "smart thing?" You bet. I think they took one look at the Felten debacle and knew to not play with the academics. I think they know the power of public relations, especially this year.
My
Limekiller
if( (day_of_week == monday || day_of_week == wednesday) ||
(day_of_week == friday || day_of_week == saturday) ){
RIAA.setEmotion(hate);
MPAA.setEmotion(love);
telcos.setEmotion(hate);
MicroSoft.setEmotion(hate);
for(int i=0; i<666; i++){
attemptSpoof("www.microsoft.com",
"www.goatse.cx");
}
} else {
RIAA.setEmotion(love);
MPAA.setEmotion(hate);
telcos.setEmotion(love);
MicroSoft.setEmotion(hate);
if(MicroSoft.getTopic() == "input_devices"){
cout << "Oh, yeah, but those are good";
Apple.mice->setEmotion(hate);
}
}
Your mind is squeezed by a blast of pain!
Maybe Microsoft did try to use the DMCA to stop this via the DMCA, but they picked the wrong venue.
"All rise! The US District Court is now in session. Judge Thomas Penfield Jackson presiding!"
MS: "Oh shit!"
"Those damn hack3rs just don't stop. Now they've focused their attention on our XBox. What should we do?"
"Hmmm... let's see... To hack XBox they have to buy it from us, and then they'll be busy on it playing video games instead of hacking our products... is that correct?"
"That's correct sir."
"Okie dokie then... give 'em the greenlight so I can take that vacation I've been wanting to take for the longest time..."
eTrade SUCKS
The Open Group has loosened up with the UNIX trademark as time has gone on, and do include Apple as a vendor complaint to the UNIX specification.http://www.unix-systems.org/what_is_ unix/single_unix_specification.html#platform
Mac OS X is UNIX.
Hyperbole is the worst thing ever.