It refers to a 128 bit filesystem ala ZFS, not the whole OS.
Either we're not reading the same article, or I suspect you didn't read it at all. At no point is a filesystem mentioned.
I'm with you, I don't know where he got filesystem from:
The senior researcher's profile said he was: "Working in high security department for research and development involving strategic planning for medium and longterm projects. Research & Development projects including 128-bit architecture compatibility with the Windows 8 kernel and Windows 9 project plan. Forming relationships with major partners: Intel, AMD, HP and IBM."
Now you see we're on the same side here. Let me show you:
However, you have to realize that in the real world right now, buyers don't really control the market.
My whole post said this exact same sentence, the difference is that I only elaborated it to the fact that consumers (buyers) still have the potential of doing so, and it's our choice. If we choose to be controlled by the seller, then like the idiots we are, we're going to be. But if we wake up and realise that we decide what the market is, since our actions form it, things will be different.
There are a lot of economics involved that shape the markets, but the biggest difference between the idealistic stencil through which so many are looking at the market and reality is the simple fact that corporations benefit (at least short-term) from a supply-driven economy and consumers benefit from a demand-driven economy...thus, it is ALWAYS in the corporations best short-term interest to try and control the market through supply. So, I doubt corporations are gonna just walk away from their cash cows...it requires us as consumers understanding everything (as you have said) and actually doing something about it (voting with our wallets, so to speak)...
You're completely right! This is my point exactly! I'm stating that corporations aren't to blame for this development, it's the gullible sheep that are:
But you have to understand, I'm not blaming the corporates, they simply seek to take advantage of whatever possible, their end purpose is revenue; that is it. However I do blame the consumers for being so ignorant, and I guess I do it for selfish reasons. You see their choices also affect me, who tries to get something actually worth my money. You provide three choices, Sony, MS and Nintendo, which is fair. But only by not picking one of these is a fourth able to emerge. You are the demand, and if you forget that you have become worse than a zealot, a zombie.
Right, because no one would ever do something purely for the challenge and then release their work.
If it takes longer to crack something that the product of cracking it is worth, you'd have no reason to even begin.
Hint: "challenge" is the key word.
Answer: You assume that by worth I mean monetary gains. The satisfaction of completing the challenge is also a product of cracking it, which has its own value. You see, clicking a button that starts bruteforcing something which would take 50-60 years isn't a challenge worth the product.
No matter how "fixed" things are someone will always find a way to circumvent security.
This is nothing new. The trick is to use time. If it takes longer to crack something that the product of cracking it is worth, you'd have no reason to even begin.
That's not what I said. I do enjoy some video games. I don't enjoy the way the are sold, that's a completely different case.
Are you saying that video games aren't worth money?
Video games, like any product, are worth money, but of course at different levels. Just like any other product it's not up to the seller to decide what it's worth, it's up to the buyer. If you read basic economics you'll know what I'm talking about, markets are controlled by buyers and provided by sellers, any markets. The seller may provide a price, preferably for him a price which generates profit, but ultimately it's the buyer that decides if the product is worth the price or not. If the seller refuses to lower the price, and the buyer refuses to purchase the product for said cost the product fails, thus the market is open for a new product, perhaps cheaper to produce with same quality or with the same production cost just with better quality. An overall better product -- that is. This time around the buyer will consider the price fair, or even good, thus we've reached development. In 1 or 5 or 10 years time new products and technologies have emerged leaving this original product to be no longer with the expenses, forcing lowering of the cost (not necessarily a loss since raw material is also purchased by the same principle, if plastic is expensive because there is little competition, leaving one party in control of the market flow, then demand will make it attractive for new producers to emerge -- thus lowering prices). You have to understand that business is about risk, and investors are always out for that sure bet, and you get that sure bet when you produce such technology where you control the market flow. Sure Sony doesn't own the gaming console market, but it owns the market below the Playstation, which means it will reach down into the pockets of anybody ever trading inside this market to grab its toll, for no added value, for the reason that the console was sold at a loss. Plus there's only so many times that excuse holds water, after a while you've paid your dues and you've given Sony their share of the cake, and then some. If consumers understood this basic concept the economy as we know it would fall to its knees, but those that would get hurt the most would be those that have created such artificial demands -- demands that weren't created by the needs of us consumers, but rather artificial scarcity, such as selling two fundamentally equal products, but at different prices with the cheaper being crippled.
Fair enough, but you're somehow trying to push the idea that business is business and consumers are to just eat this. That's completely wrong, and by playing the consumer for a fool you can get away with things until the consumer is notified. Look you have to understand the fundamental concept of trading is a tug of war and you're a damn fool of a consumer if you just "accept the idea". In anything that I have the patience for I chose carefully what to purchase, and I don't buy into the idea that a PC which is half as powerful as the PS3 costs twice as much without a reason. The reason being that the PC is a ready to use tool, while the PS3 is an empty shell that the producer sells for a loss, only to later compensate this by overpriced accessories (games, cables, whatever). You see when the near sighted consumer buys that console, without checking what the future expenses might be, in good (stupid) faith, he ends up spending more money than he had planned. In other words that initial good deal was never a good deal to begin with. Only by holding monopoly to the channels and formats can you achieve this, hurting nothing but the consumer. There are many systems that use standards, just look at the PC you have infront of you, I'm referring to other systems than gaming systems, and they are successful for one reason, they are the best money can buy. This pushes development further, raises quality and lowers prices. But you have to understand, I'm not blaming the corporates, they simply seek to take advantage of whatever possible, their end purpose is revenue; that is it. However I do blame the consumers for being so ignorant, and I guess I do it for selfish reasons. You see their choices also affect me, who tries to get something actually worth my money. You provide three choices, Sony, MS and Nintendo, which is fair. But only by not picking one of these is a fourth able to emerge. You are the demand, and if you forget that you have become worse than a zealot, a zombie.
This is pretty much how console development has worked since the beginning of time. Since they're losing money on every console, and they only make a fraction of the games, it makes no sense unless they're making a profit from somewhere else. You're right, more popular games mean more console sales. Each console sale is a loss. That's why you have to pay to develop.
I know, I'm just provoking the thought. The largest marginal actually comes from console accessories. Ever thought why they make special connectors to every new device there is? My brother works at an electronics store which produces their own line of these accessories, and he tells me that even though their brand costs half or one quarter of the "original" price, they still make a hefty sum of revenue. Your first thought might be "well the quality is worse", but I'll tell you two things. First off I know it could be the case in some scenarios, but we're talking about very basic gear, more basic than controllers. Gear such as cables etc, so it's not worse quality in this case. The second thing is, why is it impossible to imagine that they actually do overprice the accessories? As Josh here says, they sell the console at a loss, but this is merely to play on the consumers stupidity, since the console alone is completely useless! At least in theory. You're not allowed to even develop your own work on it without paying a fee. But what's even more fucked up is that this fee is annual. If they would have set the fee to be a difference between loss and profit (sure they are allowed to make profit, this is not what I'm talking about), it would be fair. Better yet, sell the console at a profit to begin with and let the consumer decide what he wants to do with his device. The company goes off with profit and the consumer gets his own way. In the end it's up to the consumers to demand this, but consumers are blind sheep that merely look at the console pricetag and think that this is the required expense and that the rest is just optional.
its a hassle. i don't even bother with modding mine being it wasn't until a few weeks ago any homebrew was released for it and its very first modchip all still very early. 360 linux lacks alot good sound 3d support etc. being none really cared abought it until just recently.
The problem with this is just like PS3 Linux. Microsoft and Sony offer a legitimate way to get homebrew on the device - Microsoft with their XNA environment (and a $99/year fee to put your homebrew on your Xbox360 and sell it (yes, Microsoft encourages you to sell your homebrew games - the "Indie Marketplace")). Sony lets people go nuts with the Linux port (until recently - the Slim can't run Linux). Both these measures kept most homebrewers busy actually making homebrew, and leaving any mods to be used for piracy (until recently, the only reason to mod your xbox was for piracy, or "playing backup games").
But if you have an Xbox360 you don't want, give to to charity or sell it. Hack it only for fun - if it doesn't do what you want, and you don't want to invest in hacking it, then you might as well give/sell it to someone who wants it more.
Wait, let me get this straight. Not only do I pay for my device, I then have to pay MS to be able to do work on it? Something that, if successful, MS will benefit from because it will simply sell them more devices (for those of you who don't understand the basic concept of console sales in relation to number of popular games, please don't answer this post). I have never heard of a case where you pay your employer. I have three questions:
Am I missing something? Is MS saying that developing is not a job? Is MS trying to leech of other peoples work without offering anything in return? (No, if you already bought the Xbox you already have what you need and you also already paid for it, saying "ok you can develop on it" is not offering something in return, and forcing someone to use their proprietary platform is not offering something in return either, OFFERING the proprietary platform however is)
I know, right? Just like how clothing totally doesn't carry any meanings. Like, if I want to wear all black, with tons of eyeliner, and fishnet stockings on my arms, that doesn't mean anything; or if I wanted to run around wearing an armband, say, or some white sheets, it's not like that could have any political meaning, right?
These are things called "social signifiers." Sarcasm aside, I understand this is something that's tough to get a handle on for solidly logical types like most geeks, but the way that we dress and act and present ourselves is part of a complex system of social messages that communicate a lot about what groups we're part of, what alliances we have, and what our beliefs are. How you present yourself is an attempt to communicate. Yes, it's illogical and arbitrary. That's the nature of human communication -- there is typically no necessary relationship between a symbol (like a word) for a thing, and the thing itself. But cultures come together and agree on certain standards, taking quite ordinary images and cultural products, and giving them symbolic meaning. That's how you know that a burning cross is not an attempt to light up your lawn nor a protest against Christianity.
You cannot be that stupid. If your conclusion from reading my text is that I neglect this fact then you better read it a hundred more times, because you cannot be more wrong. I merely pointed out the fact, and at the same time I pointed out that it's silly. Get out of that isolated little box of yours, not everybody sees the world through your eyes. That was my point, which you epically failed to understand.
Then again we humans have always been self centred and self righteous idiots...
So if the company does something illegal, let the shareholders be personally responsible and serve time for the company's crime.
Problem Solved!
Legal or not, that wasn't the point. I was talking about a conscience, and if you truly believe that the chinese people will benefit from this software then you may invest in such companies, with a clear conscience. But if you don't and you go against what you think is right for personal profit then you're an asshole.
Corporations are not people. They don't have a conscience to restrain themselves from illicit endeavors, which is also why corporations should not have rights. Giving rights to a corporation makes about as much sense as giving rights to a rock or tree.
Personally, I would just choose to not do business in China until such time as there is even a hint of transparency in the business and legal environments, but that's just me.
Exactly what everybody with a hint of conscience is thinking, thus exactly why everybody with a hint of conscience is rooting for the destruction of such money grabbing whores. Hate the player, change the game.
Incidentally, how exactly can you interpret Mozart's 5th symphony to be racist? Is there something abut B flat I don't know? Do you object to the thin orchestration?
The day a famous racist become synonymous with the song. It's proposterous, I know, if you don't believe me look at Hitler's moustache and tell me that this association isn't even more proposterous. A song at least has the potential of being political, but facial hair? The point is we humans are silly beings whom associate irrelevant traits to our fears so that we hopefully can avoid them no matter the cost, in this case racism, on both sides. The racists fear the tone of skin, or the genes of other ethnicities (usually they don't even know what a genome is, and if they do they still don't know the implications of it, because nobody yet understands our complex bodies) and then we have those who fear the racists. These are the same people that associate songs or facial hair with racism, avoid it at all cost. It's truly remarkable how people are unaware of these very basic traits, or rather flaws, of ours. Then again we humans have always been self centred and self righteous idiots, no matter what side we're on -- simply because we're always on one.
The lawyers for the film industry claimed iiNet had done 'nothing' to discourage copyright infringement on its network.
I don't understand. Are your telecom providers forced to actively discourage illegal phone calls, such as bomb threats or sexual harassment? Are your book dealers forced to actively discourage photocopying of books? Are your radiostations forced to discourage people from turning on their radios in public locations without paying STIM? Are your pastry bakers forced to discourage people from throwing cakes at eachother?
Australia, help us understand your line of thought.
It is exactly the same thing for those of us with boundary issues, or anyone trying to argue in good faith. I happen to be both. I don't give a damn about human suffering--I do care that "scientists" appear to get a free pass to circumvent the law--which is clearly the point the person was making.
You might want to say we should address the issue and not compare the two--one being supposedly horrible. Fine...all well and good. But at the core, you have just ran an argument by appeal to emotion...that is to say...you have failed to make a correct argument.
It isn't law if one group gets to ignore it and another is punished--it's privilege. The same privilege exerted by the the group that already Godwinned this debate--the claim that they were above the law because they did it for a good reason.
First of all I was replying to the comment by GP, and there was no argument in this post by this AC. Secondly while the AC was trying to bind the events together I was showing how to separate them, using the exact same type of rhetoric as him. You try to sound sophisticated, yet you fail epically. And no -- a complete lack of empathy isn't a "point of view", it's called sociopathy.
The information gained doesn't benefit them? Why else did they do this, then? Benefit isn't just cash, you know. Anythiing that provides an advantage is a 'benefit'...
Sorry I expressed myself poorly. Their gain is virtually everybodys gain as it benefits us all except the criminals at hand. I stand corrected, yet even stronger on the fact that it was a neutral act. Had they kept the information for themselves on the other hand.
Strikes me that this is a "crime" somewhat akin to stealing money from a drug dealer. Sure, I guess you are doing something "illegal" since it's not your money, but it's not like the drug dealer is going to report you to the police...
Announcing this activity publicly doesn't strike me as particularly prudent, even if it is valuable information...
Not even that. There is absolutely no personal gain for them in this. Even stealing the money has a gain and this experiment neither hurts nor benefits anybody. It's a completely neutral act not to be trolled into some nonsensical paralell about murder or theft.
so universities can break the law but common criminals can't? remind's me of nazi/japanese experiments on humans in the name of 'science'.
Really? Intercepting a botnet reminds you of experiments leading to the deaths and suffering of thousands of helpless adults and children? No I see your point, exactly the same thing.
I'll give you a hint, their customers are not the admins who actually have to comprehend and create policy/procedure to abide by License terms. They have two primary customers. 1. The retail consumer who doesn't read EULA's and willfully violates them. 2. The purchasing manager/executive class.
Sysadmins aren't on that list.
Moreover, Mr. Ballmer is giving the implicit nod to violate the terms of the license agreements. Guess who loses on that deal? The sysadmin!
You read my mind brother, and apparently the fine print of my job description. +5 truth.
Then they should provide an executable binary which upon execution upgrades. No need for an iso.
Because full-blown system installation/upgrades that are run from the same system that's being upgraded works so well? Makes you wonder why Linux can't do it without booting from a CD/DVD/other media too.
Slashdot Mirror
In a few years, when this is forgotten, Ralphy will remember this as one of the skeletons in his closet.
BTW, he meant "bear with me".
... No... :-D Woho!
It refers to a 128 bit filesystem ala ZFS, not the whole OS.
Either we're not reading the same article, or I suspect you didn't read it at all. At no point is a filesystem mentioned.
I'm with you, I don't know where he got filesystem from:
The senior researcher's profile said he was: "Working in high security department for research and development involving strategic planning for medium and longterm projects. Research & Development projects including 128-bit architecture compatibility with the Windows 8 kernel and Windows 9 project plan. Forming relationships with major partners: Intel, AMD, HP and IBM."
Clearly says architechture.
Well in *my* OS, the volume goes all the way to 11!
I'm going to try something new, bare with me:
In Soviet Russia 11 goes to our spinal tap overlords whom I for one welcome!
There, the ultimate slashdot meme, now we can all stop this nonsense.
Now you see we're on the same side here. Let me show you:
However, you have to realize that in the real world right now, buyers don't really control the market.
My whole post said this exact same sentence, the difference is that I only elaborated it to the fact that consumers (buyers) still have the potential of doing so, and it's our choice. If we choose to be controlled by the seller, then like the idiots we are, we're going to be. But if we wake up and realise that we decide what the market is, since our actions form it, things will be different.
There are a lot of economics involved that shape the markets, but the biggest difference between the idealistic stencil through which so many are looking at the market and reality is the simple fact that corporations benefit (at least short-term) from a supply-driven economy and consumers benefit from a demand-driven economy...thus, it is ALWAYS in the corporations best short-term interest to try and control the market through supply. So, I doubt corporations are gonna just walk away from their cash cows...it requires us as consumers understanding everything (as you have said) and actually doing something about it (voting with our wallets, so to speak)...
You're completely right! This is my point exactly! I'm stating that corporations aren't to blame for this development, it's the gullible sheep that are:
But you have to understand, I'm not blaming the corporates, they simply seek to take advantage of whatever possible, their end purpose is revenue; that is it. However I do blame the consumers for being so ignorant, and I guess I do it for selfish reasons. You see their choices also affect me, who tries to get something actually worth my money. You provide three choices, Sony, MS and Nintendo, which is fair. But only by not picking one of these is a fourth able to emerge. You are the demand, and if you forget that you have become worse than a zealot, a zombie.
Right, because no one would ever do something purely for the challenge and then release their work.
If it takes longer to crack something that the product of cracking it is worth, you'd have no reason to even begin.
Hint: "challenge" is the key word.
Answer: You assume that by worth I mean monetary gains. The satisfaction of completing the challenge is also a product of cracking it, which has its own value. You see, clicking a button that starts bruteforcing something which would take 50-60 years isn't a challenge worth the product.
No matter how "fixed" things are someone will always find a way to circumvent security.
This is nothing new. The trick is to use time. If it takes longer to crack something that the product of cracking it is worth, you'd have no reason to even begin.
I take it you don't like video games.
That's not what I said. I do enjoy some video games. I don't enjoy the way the are sold, that's a completely different case.
Are you saying that video games aren't worth money?
Video games, like any product, are worth money, but of course at different levels. Just like any other product it's not up to the seller to decide what it's worth, it's up to the buyer. If you read basic economics you'll know what I'm talking about, markets are controlled by buyers and provided by sellers, any markets. The seller may provide a price, preferably for him a price which generates profit, but ultimately it's the buyer that decides if the product is worth the price or not. If the seller refuses to lower the price, and the buyer refuses to purchase the product for said cost the product fails, thus the market is open for a new product, perhaps cheaper to produce with same quality or with the same production cost just with better quality. An overall better product -- that is. This time around the buyer will consider the price fair, or even good, thus we've reached development. In 1 or 5 or 10 years time new products and technologies have emerged leaving this original product to be no longer with the expenses, forcing lowering of the cost (not necessarily a loss since raw material is also purchased by the same principle, if plastic is expensive because there is little competition, leaving one party in control of the market flow, then demand will make it attractive for new producers to emerge -- thus lowering prices). You have to understand that business is about risk, and investors are always out for that sure bet, and you get that sure bet when you produce such technology where you control the market flow. Sure Sony doesn't own the gaming console market, but it owns the market below the Playstation, which means it will reach down into the pockets of anybody ever trading inside this market to grab its toll, for no added value, for the reason that the console was sold at a loss. Plus there's only so many times that excuse holds water, after a while you've paid your dues and you've given Sony their share of the cake, and then some. If consumers understood this basic concept the economy as we know it would fall to its knees, but those that would get hurt the most would be those that have created such artificial demands -- demands that weren't created by the needs of us consumers, but rather artificial scarcity, such as selling two fundamentally equal products, but at different prices with the cheaper being crippled.
Fair enough, but you're somehow trying to push the idea that business is business and consumers are to just eat this. That's completely wrong, and by playing the consumer for a fool you can get away with things until the consumer is notified. Look you have to understand the fundamental concept of trading is a tug of war and you're a damn fool of a consumer if you just "accept the idea". In anything that I have the patience for I chose carefully what to purchase, and I don't buy into the idea that a PC which is half as powerful as the PS3 costs twice as much without a reason. The reason being that the PC is a ready to use tool, while the PS3 is an empty shell that the producer sells for a loss, only to later compensate this by overpriced accessories (games, cables, whatever). You see when the near sighted consumer buys that console, without checking what the future expenses might be, in good (stupid) faith, he ends up spending more money than he had planned. In other words that initial good deal was never a good deal to begin with. Only by holding monopoly to the channels and formats can you achieve this, hurting nothing but the consumer. There are many systems that use standards, just look at the PC you have infront of you, I'm referring to other systems than gaming systems, and they are successful for one reason, they are the best money can buy. This pushes development further, raises quality and lowers prices. But you have to understand, I'm not blaming the corporates, they simply seek to take advantage of whatever possible, their end purpose is revenue; that is it. However I do blame the consumers for being so ignorant, and I guess I do it for selfish reasons. You see their choices also affect me, who tries to get something actually worth my money. You provide three choices, Sony, MS and Nintendo, which is fair. But only by not picking one of these is a fourth able to emerge. You are the demand, and if you forget that you have become worse than a zealot, a zombie.
This is pretty much how console development has worked since the beginning of time. Since they're losing money on every console, and they only make a fraction of the games, it makes no sense unless they're making a profit from somewhere else. You're right, more popular games mean more console sales. Each console sale is a loss. That's why you have to pay to develop.
I know, I'm just provoking the thought. The largest marginal actually comes from console accessories. Ever thought why they make special connectors to every new device there is? My brother works at an electronics store which produces their own line of these accessories, and he tells me that even though their brand costs half or one quarter of the "original" price, they still make a hefty sum of revenue. Your first thought might be "well the quality is worse", but I'll tell you two things. First off I know it could be the case in some scenarios, but we're talking about very basic gear, more basic than controllers. Gear such as cables etc, so it's not worse quality in this case. The second thing is, why is it impossible to imagine that they actually do overprice the accessories? As Josh here says, they sell the console at a loss, but this is merely to play on the consumers stupidity, since the console alone is completely useless! At least in theory. You're not allowed to even develop your own work on it without paying a fee. But what's even more fucked up is that this fee is annual. If they would have set the fee to be a difference between loss and profit (sure they are allowed to make profit, this is not what I'm talking about), it would be fair. Better yet, sell the console at a profit to begin with and let the consumer decide what he wants to do with his device. The company goes off with profit and the consumer gets his own way. In the end it's up to the consumers to demand this, but consumers are blind sheep that merely look at the console pricetag and think that this is the required expense and that the rest is just optional.
The problem with this is just like PS3 Linux. Microsoft and Sony offer a legitimate way to get homebrew on the device - Microsoft with their XNA environment (and a $99/year fee to put your homebrew on your Xbox360 and sell it (yes, Microsoft encourages you to sell your homebrew games - the "Indie Marketplace")). Sony lets people go nuts with the Linux port (until recently - the Slim can't run Linux). Both these measures kept most homebrewers busy actually making homebrew, and leaving any mods to be used for piracy (until recently, the only reason to mod your xbox was for piracy, or "playing backup games").
But if you have an Xbox360 you don't want, give to to charity or sell it. Hack it only for fun - if it doesn't do what you want, and you don't want to invest in hacking it, then you might as well give/sell it to someone who wants it more.
Wait, let me get this straight. Not only do I pay for my device, I then have to pay MS to be able to do work on it? Something that, if successful, MS will benefit from because it will simply sell them more devices (for those of you who don't understand the basic concept of console sales in relation to number of popular games, please don't answer this post). I have never heard of a case where you pay your employer. I have three questions:
Am I missing something?
Is MS saying that developing is not a job?
Is MS trying to leech of other peoples work without offering anything in return? (No, if you already bought the Xbox you already have what you need and you also already paid for it, saying "ok you can develop on it" is not offering something in return, and forcing someone to use their proprietary platform is not offering something in return either, OFFERING the proprietary platform however is)
I know, right? Just like how clothing totally doesn't carry any meanings. Like, if I want to wear all black, with tons of eyeliner, and fishnet stockings on my arms, that doesn't mean anything; or if I wanted to run around wearing an armband, say, or some white sheets, it's not like that could have any political meaning, right?
These are things called "social signifiers." Sarcasm aside, I understand this is something that's tough to get a handle on for solidly logical types like most geeks, but the way that we dress and act and present ourselves is part of a complex system of social messages that communicate a lot about what groups we're part of, what alliances we have, and what our beliefs are. How you present yourself is an attempt to communicate. Yes, it's illogical and arbitrary. That's the nature of human communication -- there is typically no necessary relationship between a symbol (like a word) for a thing, and the thing itself. But cultures come together and agree on certain standards, taking quite ordinary images and cultural products, and giving them symbolic meaning. That's how you know that a burning cross is not an attempt to light up your lawn nor a protest against Christianity.
You cannot be that stupid. If your conclusion from reading my text is that I neglect this fact then you better read it a hundred more times, because you cannot be more wrong. I merely pointed out the fact, and at the same time I pointed out that it's silly. Get out of that isolated little box of yours, not everybody sees the world through your eyes. That was my point, which you epically failed to understand.
Then again we humans have always been self centred and self righteous idiots...
So if the company does something illegal, let the shareholders be personally responsible and serve time for the company's crime.
Problem Solved!
Legal or not, that wasn't the point. I was talking about a conscience, and if you truly believe that the chinese people will benefit from this software then you may invest in such companies, with a clear conscience. But if you don't and you go against what you think is right for personal profit then you're an asshole.
Corporations are not people. They don't have a conscience to restrain themselves from illicit endeavors, which is also why corporations should not have rights. Giving rights to a corporation makes about as much sense as giving rights to a rock or tree.
Shareholders are people.
Personally, I would just choose to not do business in China until such time as there is even a hint of transparency in the business and legal environments, but that's just me.
Exactly what everybody with a hint of conscience is thinking, thus exactly why everybody with a hint of conscience is rooting for the destruction of such money grabbing whores. Hate the player, change the game.
Incidentally, how exactly can you interpret Mozart's 5th symphony to be racist? Is there something abut B flat I don't know? Do you object to the thin orchestration?
The day a famous racist become synonymous with the song. It's proposterous, I know, if you don't believe me look at Hitler's moustache and tell me that this association isn't even more proposterous. A song at least has the potential of being political, but facial hair? The point is we humans are silly beings whom associate irrelevant traits to our fears so that we hopefully can avoid them no matter the cost, in this case racism, on both sides. The racists fear the tone of skin, or the genes of other ethnicities (usually they don't even know what a genome is, and if they do they still don't know the implications of it, because nobody yet understands our complex bodies) and then we have those who fear the racists. These are the same people that associate songs or facial hair with racism, avoid it at all cost. It's truly remarkable how people are unaware of these very basic traits, or rather flaws, of ours. Then again we humans have always been self centred and self righteous idiots, no matter what side we're on -- simply because we're always on one.
The lawyers for the film industry claimed iiNet had done 'nothing' to discourage copyright infringement on its network.
I don't understand. Are your telecom providers forced to actively discourage illegal phone calls, such as bomb threats or sexual harassment? Are your book dealers forced to actively discourage photocopying of books? Are your radiostations forced to discourage people from turning on their radios in public locations without paying STIM? Are your pastry bakers forced to discourage people from throwing cakes at eachother?
Australia, help us understand your line of thought.
It is exactly the same thing for those of us with boundary issues, or anyone trying to argue in good faith. I happen to be both. I don't give a damn about human suffering--I do care that "scientists" appear to get a free pass to circumvent the law--which is clearly the point the person was making.
You might want to say we should address the issue and not compare the two--one being supposedly horrible. Fine...all well and good. But at the core, you have just ran an argument by appeal to emotion...that is to say...you have failed to make a correct argument.
It isn't law if one group gets to ignore it and another is punished--it's privilege. The same privilege exerted by the the group that already Godwinned this debate--the claim that they were above the law because they did it for a good reason.
First of all I was replying to the comment by GP, and there was no argument in this post by this AC. Secondly while the AC was trying to bind the events together I was showing how to separate them, using the exact same type of rhetoric as him. You try to sound sophisticated, yet you fail epically. And no -- a complete lack of empathy isn't a "point of view", it's called sociopathy.
The information gained doesn't benefit them? Why else did they do this, then? Benefit isn't just cash, you know. Anythiing that provides an advantage is a 'benefit'...
Sorry I expressed myself poorly. Their gain is virtually everybodys gain as it benefits us all except the criminals at hand. I stand corrected, yet even stronger on the fact that it was a neutral act. Had they kept the information for themselves on the other hand.
Strikes me that this is a "crime" somewhat akin to stealing money from a drug dealer. Sure, I guess you are doing something "illegal" since it's not your money, but it's not like the drug dealer is going to report you to the police...
Announcing this activity publicly doesn't strike me as particularly prudent, even if it is valuable information...
Not even that. There is absolutely no personal gain for them in this. Even stealing the money has a gain and this experiment neither hurts nor benefits anybody. It's a completely neutral act not to be trolled into some nonsensical paralell about murder or theft.
so universities can break the law but common criminals can't? remind's me of nazi/japanese experiments on humans in the name of 'science'.
Really? Intercepting a botnet reminds you of experiments leading to the deaths and suffering of thousands of helpless adults and children? No I see your point, exactly the same thing.
I'll give you a hint, their customers are not the admins who actually have to comprehend and create policy/procedure to abide by License terms. They have two primary customers.
1. The retail consumer who doesn't read EULA's and willfully violates them.
2. The purchasing manager/executive class.
Sysadmins aren't on that list.
Moreover, Mr. Ballmer is giving the implicit nod to violate the terms of the license agreements. Guess who loses on that deal? The sysadmin!
You read my mind brother, and apparently the fine print of my job description. +5 truth.
Then they should provide an executable binary which upon execution upgrades. No need for an iso.
Because full-blown system installation/upgrades that are run from the same system that's being upgraded works so well? Makes you wonder why Linux can't do it without booting from a CD/DVD/other media too.
Linux man and his sidekick GNU boy, two cybervigilantes who fight day to day internet trolls with links of wisdom. KAPLOW! BOOM! HREF!
:-)
Oh and yes, I have tried it, for 6 dists in a row now.
i can imagine all the calls to Dell. i burned the iso to a dvd and it still won't boot
Then they should provide an executable binary which upon execution upgrades. No need for an iso.
But, yeah a download or something would be a neat idea, but then it would likely be hacked in like 2 seconds.
As opposed to any other software ever released by MS?