...that in the case of shared/allocated ISP addresses used by many possible subscribers, they'll just pick which ever poor sod happens to be using at the time. Rather than understanding or realising the severe flaws of ID via IP address
I agree. Curiosity (and perseverance) is a huge part of starting to code (or wanting to code).
When I was ~9 I ran out of games to play on the PC. We didn't buy games (at all) in fact, so they were all demos I had completed. I decided I wanted to make my own games to kill time. Having no idea of the concept of binary executables or whatnot, I just tinkered with files in the game demos trying to figure out how they worked. Opening them in text editors and screwing with them, that kind of thing. Well that's where it started, anyhow. That kind of "trying to understand how it works" exploration is sort of a 'golden moment' that gets you started toward programming I think. Because when you actively want to find out how it works (as per the post above) that question never really goes away until you answer it
It is now their responsibility in general, yes (hence why the game has now gone) - but it's not their responsibility to go through every term of their licence and ensure it matches up with the licence of the code you've nabbed.
Obviously should be (and is) the FSF's first port of call - but actually blaming Apple for the inability to enforce the entire licence... that just doesn't make sense. The developer used the licence and happily agreed to Apple's subsequent licensing (which includes "Confirming you hold copyright/ownership" clauses): It's their fault
'Apple won't let them' is sod all to do with anything. It is the developer's responsibility to check for conflicting licences / areas where the licence cannot possible be used, not Apple's responsibility
The only way this is 'Apple won't let them' is because the port is attached to proprietary Apple stuff (in terms of the full source) and the fact Apple's terms disallow modification (what do you want them to say? 'Huh, yeah, sure, durr... buy apps and modify them even if they're not GPL'ed... herp derp derr'. That is not Apple's problem. They didn't develop the application, they didn't breach the licence. The developer did by being completely brain-dead
That doesn't really answer the question - what has Nero done in terms of breaking agreements? If MPEG-LA are confident to write this off as just a typical "licence non-abider" then what grounds do they have? I know Nero are accusing them of agreement screwiness, but if MPEG-LA are saying this is just Nero's kneejerk for doing something wrong and trying to get out of it, have they got grounds for that? Has Nero broken some agreement themselves?
"According to the MPEG-LA, Nero's case is nothing special. "I think we're looking it as a typical response by a company that has not abided by the terms of the license they've taken,"
Have Nero not abided by their licence deals? Or are MPEG-LA going to paint it this way to try and throw the case out as a tit-for-tat?
Agreed. MPEG-LA is a glorified protection racket - any corp. brave enough to take a stand against it (and the myriad of other companies it 'shields') is worth standing behind
I meant to finish off my last line with: This money would be better allocated to orphanages. Huge amounts of children in Zambia must be without parents due to AIDs. 10-20% of pop. is huge
Whilst I would generally agree with this kind of debunking, I have to disagree this time around - purely because of the cost. This is a massive amount of money. 'High level' stuff (computers, internet etc.) can wait until basic amenities are fully in place. This huge amount of money can be spent on something more crucial before computers etc. because very few people die because lack of a computer in a cargo carrier. Coupled with the fact the first one is going to Zambia of all places - which is stricken not only by poverty but also AIDS
I get where you're coming from. The idea everyone in place X is struck by poverty is naive. But Zambia of all places is not exactly in dire need of computing power versus other kinds of donations. To top it off, a good 20% of their population is AIDs positive.
Yeah, but this isn't a security flaw due to an oversight or simple mistake. This is a massive downright idiotic flaw! How the HELL did this make it into a product?
Patents are just a dog-eat-dog thing though. If you don't screw someone else over, they'll screw you over. Apple already experienced that with some iPod tech if I recall - MS submitted a patent a few months prior to Apple patenting their iPod UI stuff. MS got the patent and Apple paid royalties to MS
I think they got it overturned (or were trying to) - but my point is, there's no way they'll let that happen again. They'll mess up everyone else first because they've already been bitten by the not-using-patents-to-maximum-extent thing
Well, yes: Because this driver is not vendor specific. It's part of the actual OS itself. When was the last time you saw, say, a huge flaw in the Linux framebuffer, or something like that?
If the vulnerability is caused by the vendor of a chip, or the shoddy documentation of s chip maker: hell yes, blame the third part. In this case... MS can only blame themselves. Their own 'canonical display driver' is shoddy, not a 3rd party chip maker.
That's because the formats are 'open' in the sense that they are poorly documented and difficult to implement. Opening your formats is one thing - assisting others to actively achieve interoperability is another
...and not because of what it has done. It is just generally a sucky exam board for technical stuff and science. AQA's main areas are English and the arts. It is not good at maths and science which why the majority of secondary schools only have AQA exams for English etc.
The ones that are worth their weight are the ones that don't teach any specific language (WJEC is one like this - the one I did, in fact. The written exam is a joke but the coursework is very well constructed). They let you implement a project of your choice in any language. You have to document it at all, explain the rationale behind it, evaluate and demonstrate it etc. Much much closer to a 'real world' project than a "HERE IS LANGUAGE X LET'S LEARN IT BECAUSE IT'S THE ONLY THING YOU'RE ALLOWED TO DO"
This behaviour greatly puzzled me on Chrome / Win32, because on OS X it still has a dedicated Bookmarks menu. Obviously this is because there is somewhere to actually put it on OS X (with the split between the window itself and the top bar) but it's still a strange inconsistency between platforms. I would have expected them to either all have a bookmarks menu, or all of them to lack a bookmark menu - not a mishmash.
Second, we'll expand that left-hand launcher panel so that it is touch-friendly. With relatively few applications required for instant-on environments, [...]
The fact some polling stations ran out of paper for people to vote on.... well, that should pretty much sum up the things that need reforming. "Complete incompetence"
Interactive books have been around for decades - books with sliding tabs, sound effects when you press little buttons - those kinds of things. So I don't think e-books along the lines of that Alice one are a problem at all
What we should be concerned about is interactivity replacing the text rather than augmenting it. That's when it's a problem
Slashdot Mirror
...that in the case of shared/allocated ISP addresses used by many possible subscribers, they'll just pick which ever poor sod happens to be using at the time. Rather than understanding or realising the severe flaws of ID via IP address
I agree. Curiosity (and perseverance) is a huge part of starting to code (or wanting to code).
When I was ~9 I ran out of games to play on the PC. We didn't buy games (at all) in fact, so they were all demos I had completed. I decided I wanted to make my own games to kill time. Having no idea of the concept of binary executables or whatnot, I just tinkered with files in the game demos trying to figure out how they worked. Opening them in text editors and screwing with them, that kind of thing. Well that's where it started, anyhow. That kind of "trying to understand how it works" exploration is sort of a 'golden moment' that gets you started toward programming I think. Because when you actively want to find out how it works (as per the post above) that question never really goes away until you answer it
It won't be MSVC. It'll be the new Office for Mac introduction.
It is now their responsibility in general, yes (hence why the game has now gone) - but it's not their responsibility to go through every term of their licence and ensure it matches up with the licence of the code you've nabbed.
Obviously should be (and is) the FSF's first port of call - but actually blaming Apple for the inability to enforce the entire licence... that just doesn't make sense. The developer used the licence and happily agreed to Apple's subsequent licensing (which includes "Confirming you hold copyright/ownership" clauses): It's their fault
What? Sorry but that is total bollocks.
'Apple won't let them' is sod all to do with anything. It is the developer's responsibility to check for conflicting licences / areas where the licence cannot possible be used, not Apple's responsibility
The only way this is 'Apple won't let them' is because the port is attached to proprietary Apple stuff (in terms of the full source) and the fact Apple's terms disallow modification (what do you want them to say? 'Huh, yeah, sure, durr... buy apps and modify them even if they're not GPL'ed... herp derp derr'. That is not Apple's problem. They didn't develop the application, they didn't breach the licence. The developer did by being completely brain-dead
British spelling. True story (and it's the correct form of licence too)
That doesn't really answer the question - what has Nero done in terms of breaking agreements? If MPEG-LA are confident to write this off as just a typical "licence non-abider" then what grounds do they have? I know Nero are accusing them of agreement screwiness, but if MPEG-LA are saying this is just Nero's kneejerk for doing something wrong and trying to get out of it, have they got grounds for that? Has Nero broken some agreement themselves?
That said:
"According to the MPEG-LA, Nero's case is nothing special. "I think we're looking it as a typical response by a company that has not abided by the terms of the license they've taken,"
Have Nero not abided by their licence deals? Or are MPEG-LA going to paint it this way to try and throw the case out as a tit-for-tat?
Agreed. MPEG-LA is a glorified protection racket - any corp. brave enough to take a stand against it (and the myriad of other companies it 'shields') is worth standing behind
Mod parent up before the clock strikes thirteen
I meant to finish off my last line with: This money would be better allocated to orphanages. Huge amounts of children in Zambia must be without parents due to AIDs. 10-20% of pop. is huge
Whilst I would generally agree with this kind of debunking, I have to disagree this time around - purely because of the cost. This is a massive amount of money. 'High level' stuff (computers, internet etc.) can wait until basic amenities are fully in place. This huge amount of money can be spent on something more crucial before computers etc. because very few people die because lack of a computer in a cargo carrier. Coupled with the fact the first one is going to Zambia of all places - which is stricken not only by poverty but also AIDS
I get where you're coming from. The idea everyone in place X is struck by poverty is naive. But Zambia of all places is not exactly in dire need of computing power versus other kinds of donations. To top it off, a good 20% of their population is AIDs positive.
Yeah, but this isn't a security flaw due to an oversight or simple mistake. This is a massive downright idiotic flaw! How the HELL did this make it into a product?
Patents are just a dog-eat-dog thing though. If you don't screw someone else over, they'll screw you over. Apple already experienced that with some iPod tech if I recall - MS submitted a patent a few months prior to Apple patenting their iPod UI stuff. MS got the patent and Apple paid royalties to MS
I think they got it overturned (or were trying to) - but my point is, there's no way they'll let that happen again. They'll mess up everyone else first because they've already been bitten by the not-using-patents-to-maximum-extent thing
"That's why it might make more sense to just use H.264 and save yourself from future problems."
Sure. Provided this statement is a cash-guarantee to everyone who wants to implement it: You'll pay roll all the licensing fees, yeah?
Well, yes: Because this driver is not vendor specific. It's part of the actual OS itself. When was the last time you saw, say, a huge flaw in the Linux framebuffer, or something like that?
If the vulnerability is caused by the vendor of a chip, or the shoddy documentation of s chip maker: hell yes, blame the third part. In this case... MS can only blame themselves. Their own 'canonical display driver' is shoddy, not a 3rd party chip maker.
That's because the formats are 'open' in the sense that they are poorly documented and difficult to implement. Opening your formats is one thing - assisting others to actively achieve interoperability is another
...and not because of what it has done. It is just generally a sucky exam board for technical stuff and science. AQA's main areas are English and the arts. It is not good at maths and science which why the majority of secondary schools only have AQA exams for English etc.
The ones that are worth their weight are the ones that don't teach any specific language (WJEC is one like this - the one I did, in fact. The written exam is a joke but the coursework is very well constructed). They let you implement a project of your choice in any language. You have to document it at all, explain the rationale behind it, evaluate and demonstrate it etc. Much much closer to a 'real world' project than a "HERE IS LANGUAGE X LET'S LEARN IT BECAUSE IT'S THE ONLY THING YOU'RE ALLOWED TO DO"
This behaviour greatly puzzled me on Chrome / Win32, because on OS X it still has a dedicated Bookmarks menu. Obviously this is because there is somewhere to actually put it on OS X (with the split between the window itself and the top bar) but it's still a strange inconsistency between platforms. I would have expected them to either all have a bookmarks menu, or all of them to lack a bookmark menu - not a mishmash.
Meh.
Could have been a well-done joke if you hadn't selected an OS X user :D
8th line of the summary:
Second, we'll expand that left-hand launcher panel so that it is touch-friendly. With relatively few applications required for instant-on environments, [...]
This is a joke, right? Instant-on is mentioned about 15 times throughout the article.
The fact some polling stations ran out of paper for people to vote on.... well, that should pretty much sum up the things that need reforming. "Complete incompetence"
Interactive books have been around for decades - books with sliding tabs, sound effects when you press little buttons - those kinds of things. So I don't think e-books along the lines of that Alice one are a problem at all
What we should be concerned about is interactivity replacing the text rather than augmenting it. That's when it's a problem
I actually had no idea that existed. If I can get it to accept the screen input etc. I'll definitely give it a go - thanks for the info!