Well, if you're lucky enough to have all of your hardware be DRM compliant (this is a bit more likely to happen in the far future), then (if everything else lines up right -- and you've paid the extra per-view fees that the big content holders are hoping to be able to charge you, one day soon --), you can at least hope to have the high quality media that you paid gazillions of dollars for display in high quality format.
In the meantime, just resign yourself to the fact that you've been hosed -- and will continue to be hosed in the forseable future.
Remember that what you hear from the marketing people, what they actually mean, and what you actually receive can often be subtly (or even drastically) different.
The problem with Vista isn't that it will mess with your unprotectd media, but rather that it might mess with your unprotected media, and when and why that happens cannot always be that predictable or the DRM features that MS has been touting to the big media producers (and being coy about when talking to consumers) will be too easy to break.
This problem will be especially pronounced for professional content creators because they're going to have a higher than normal probability of needing to (legitimately) work with protected content -- whether it's their own or somebody else's. Again, this is very unlikely to always happen, but it doesn't take that many 'unfortunate coincidences' to turn your average high-strung artist into a paranoid schizophrenic.
This deal may bind Novell and MS in unexpected ways... If/when MS starts to distribute it's tokens for copies of Novell's SUSE linux, you can look at the two as being a combined entity distributing Linux in violation of Copyright (since they're obviously not abiding by the GPL). IANAL, so it's not perfectly clear to me whether you would accuse MS of primary of contributory copyright violation -- but I'm pretty sure that, if they were to sue someone who called on entities like OSDL to support them in their defence, you could end up draw in Novell as a third party co-defendant on the counter-suit.
If my theory holds, somebody with an itchy pen-finger wouldn't even have to wait for a Microsoft patent suit to sue the pair -- although I'd probably wait for the resolution of IBM's copyright countersuit against SCO for a possibly useful precedent.
There's usually more than one way to cat a file.
Given that the technology isn't obvious, it would have probably been protected as a 'trade secret' (which is what they effectively did). As such, it would have been lost precisely as it was.
This is the stupid thing about patents and trade secrets together.... Patents mean that things that people could probably figure out easily are not allowed to the public to enable competition. On the other hand, things that really are a great leap in technology get protected by trade secret, and never released to the public (( which release was the purpose of the patent section of the first amendment).
"We've got 3 times as much time if you include oil that we can't find and/or can't get to"
Yep. They did it! They're including unproven and unknown reserves in their estimates and then calling the other guys unreasonable.
I would also raise the question of whether their predictions include non-recoverable oil (i.e. oil that would probably take more energy to extract than it would provide). I'm guessing that it probably does.
That they would publicize a bare claim that we have 122 years worth of oil, based on static current consumption says a lot about the view that they're trying to push.. Just a quick bit of spreadsheet work (i.e. about 10 minutes) gives a prediction that if you allow oil consumption to increase by only 1%/year, we have only 79 years worth of oil left before hitting the wall. If consumption increases by 5%/year, that drops to 39 years. ( spreadsheet in ODF format ).
Given that almost all economic projections pretty much require a geometrically increasing economy, 122 is pretty much an upper bound for conventional predictions... (( I will, however, note that a 1%annual decrease in consumption results in a nearly infinite theoretical timeline ))
I would also raise the question of whether their predictions include non-recoverable oil (i.e. oil that would probably take more energy to extract than it would provide). I'm guessing that it probably does.
A more complete reading of the decision only shows that there are situations with a copyright-associated license where you can only sue for contract violations.... For example, Microsoft's requirement that you can't discuss benchmark results without their permission only classifies as a contract term -- This is because, when I talk about how Access is 10 times slower than YourSql I'm not distributing any MS code, so I'm not violating their copyright.
The determination in the Sun Vs MS case wasn't that Sun didn't have a copyright case because of the contract -- but rather that the judge didn't distinguish that MS was violating copyright (as opposed to contract) before (s)he issued an injunction under the (far more lax) rules of copyright infringement.
The GPL, on the other hand, simply says that I only have the permission to distribute MySQL if I'm following the terms of the license. Thus, if I'm not following the rules of the GPL, my only defense is that I'm not violating copyright. i.e. a GPL case is solely a copyright case, with the defendant having only two credible defenses:
I'm not distributing your software (and thus not violating copyright), or
I'm following the GPL, so you're estopped from suing me.
IANAL, but I think that claiming that a GPL suit isn't about copyright is going to be a seriously uphill battle (as in almost vertical).
I'm pretty sure that SCO flew an argument like this early on in their IBM litigation. They're still waiting for the foot-shaped bruise on their butts to fade. Among other things, the Copyright Act apparently explicitly allows a copyright owner to trade access to their material for copyright material of the recipient -- which is precisely what the GPL does.
This half-assed defense also presumes that money is the only legitimate cause of action in the courts. Rong.
My sense is that the King of Hawaii had the support of his people. having a 'king' doesn't mean that the king's presence isn't the expression of the will of his people. O now that in coast salish cultures, a 'hereditary leader' could be expunged on a simple majority vote of the people. The fact that it occured so rarely is because the 'hereditary' chiefs were chosen and trained very carefully.
I think that the point is that "The Munroe Doctrine" has slowly expanded to the point where it is essentially 'if the US cares about it, nobody can say otherwise'. We should also note that the promise that the US would stay neutral in intra-european affairs was pretty thoroughly trashed when the US walked all over WWII. Overthrowing the (fledgling) popular government in Iran didn't help the legitimacy of the doctrine either.
I assert that, if ZERT hadn't shamed Microsoft into action it is very likely that MS would have probably let the exploit float around for a month before they patched for it.
Yes they did have a live exploit. The complaint is that they didn't even try to give Mozilla foundation an opportunity to patch the bug before the released it to the black-hats (along with the white hats) at the conference.
The only difference between a zero-day exploit and a normal exploit is whether the person who finds the exploit allows a fix to be crafted before (s)he releases the bug that allows it.
The main difference between Open Source groups like Mozilla and Microsoft is that (responsible) open source projects will fix potential security bugs whenever they're informed of them and whether or not there is an exploit available, while Microsoft seems to have a habit of holding off on fixing a bug unless the exploit is blatently obvious and/or there is an proof of concept exploit already in existence (and sometimes even in the wild).
Given the way that these guys are touting how Firefox is vulnerable because they were able to find a bug that they refused to warn the firefox team about (like that refusal is Firefox's fault) I wouldn't be at all surprised to find that they managed to get some funding (either direct or indirect) from Microsoftl.
Well, flow is all good and nice, but I'd say that a reasonable meaning comes first. That and truth trump flow in my view. We're talking history here, not artistic license.
Either way, they should have just STFU about it, since "one small step for A man" doesn't flow nearly as well.
A totally sanitised environment is no problem to be raised in as long you are going to continue living in it forever.
That may not be true. The worst case is that, if a 'bored' imune system can lead to hypersensitivity, a totally sanitised environment may lead to you getting sensitive to things like skin dust or human hair, or something (anything) in the food you're eating. Your immune system grew up in millions of years of non-sterile envirnment and so a reasonable presumption is that if it's not seeing any pathogens, it's not being dilligent enough -- so it ups the sensitivity until background noise sounds like a signal.
The first clue that pointed me to the possibility that overly clean environments can lead to immune problems came from the difference between me and my middle sister.. We're pretty close to each other in a lot of ways, and have even managed to be mistaken for identical twins (when wearing heavy winter coats).
Since we've moved away from home, she's kept an immaculate house -- nothing out of place and incredibly clean.
I, on the other hand, have almost always had at least one cat and one roommate, clean on a sporadic basis, and once learned (empirically) that at least one species of ant can help eradicate a stubborn flea infestation.
The result: I have no known alergies, and she suffers from multiple alergies. It doesn't make much sense unless a bored immune system becomes hypersensitive.
The comments about SCO unix are enlightening, when one of their own breaks camp and tries to actually be a business they launch nuclear warheads at them.
I'd like to see what you have to say about Bennedict Arnold and Judas....
Women sometimes think and work a bit differently than men do, so getting a woman's input into how things work is useful to promoting World Dominance (tm) for Linux. If they had 50% (or even 30%) participation by women, then I'd say they were being sexist, but at 0% there's a real, practical value to getting at least some input from the fairer sex.
There would also be some real practical value to figuring out why (structurally speaking) there is so little female participation.
Microsoft is calling Vista the most secure OS In the industry. Given that Microsoft considers themselves to be an industry unto themselves, all they really have to to do to hold onto that laurel is be better than Vista.
The GPL does not do a very good job of respecting the wishes of the writers of non-GPL code who want to work with GPL code,
Things like the ODF format don't require MS to GPL anything -- They can implement it whenever they want without having to Open Source anything.
MS Can, and has, distributed GPL code for Windows.
Microsoft's proprietary licenses do not do a very good job of respecting the wishes of GPL code writers who want to ensure that their code remains free.
It's microsoft that appears to have deliberately designed "open source" licences so that they could not work with GPL licensed code.
The GPL doesn't specifically target Microsoft. If Microsoft wants a cease - fire, their best step is to pull their finger away from the trigger.
Slashdot Mirror
In the meantime, just resign yourself to the fact that you've been hosed -- and will continue to be hosed in the forseable future.
Remember that what you hear from the marketing people, what they actually mean, and what you actually receive can often be subtly (or even drastically) different.
This problem will be especially pronounced for professional content creators because they're going to have a higher than normal probability of needing to (legitimately) work with protected content -- whether it's their own or somebody else's. Again, this is very unlikely to always happen, but it doesn't take that many 'unfortunate coincidences' to turn your average high-strung artist into a paranoid schizophrenic.
If my theory holds, somebody with an itchy pen-finger wouldn't even have to wait for a Microsoft patent suit to sue the pair -- although I'd probably wait for the resolution of IBM's copyright countersuit against SCO for a possibly useful precedent.
There's usually more than one way to cat a file.
This is the stupid thing about patents and trade secrets together.... Patents mean that things that people could probably figure out easily are not allowed to the public to enable competition. On the other hand, things that really are a great leap in technology get protected by trade secret, and never released to the public (( which release was the purpose of the patent section of the first amendment).
Yep. They did it! They're including unproven and unknown reserves in their estimates and then calling the other guys unreasonable.
Given that almost all economic projections pretty much require a geometrically increasing economy, 122 is pretty much an upper bound for conventional predictions... (( I will, however, note that a 1%annual decrease in consumption results in a nearly infinite theoretical timeline ))
I would also raise the question of whether their predictions include non-recoverable oil (i.e. oil that would probably take more energy to extract than it would provide). I'm guessing that it probably does.
They're free to beta-test it, as long as neither me, nor my friends are in the are(n)a.
The determination in the Sun Vs MS case wasn't that Sun didn't have a copyright case because of the contract -- but rather that the judge didn't distinguish that MS was violating copyright (as opposed to contract) before (s)he issued an injunction under the (far more lax) rules of copyright infringement.
The GPL, on the other hand, simply says that I only have the permission to distribute MySQL if I'm following the terms of the license. Thus, if I'm not following the rules of the GPL, my only defense is that I'm not violating copyright. i.e. a GPL case is solely a copyright case, with the defendant having only two credible defenses:
- I'm not distributing your software (and thus not violating copyright), or
- I'm following the GPL, so you're estopped from suing me.
IANAL, but I think that claiming that a GPL suit isn't about copyright is going to be a seriously uphill battle (as in almost vertical).Now, if SCO drops a claim, then you know that it won't hold a mouthfull of pebbles, much less water.
This half-assed defense also presumes that money is the only legitimate cause of action in the courts.
Rong.
My sense is that the King of Hawaii had the support of his people. having a 'king' doesn't mean that the king's presence isn't the expression of the will of his people. O now that in coast salish cultures, a 'hereditary leader' could be expunged on a simple majority vote of the people. The fact that it occured so rarely is because the 'hereditary' chiefs were chosen and trained very carefully.
I think that the point is that "The Munroe Doctrine" has slowly expanded to the point where it is essentially 'if the US cares about it, nobody can say otherwise'. We should also note that the promise that the US would stay neutral in intra-european affairs was pretty thoroughly trashed when the US walked all over WWII. Overthrowing the (fledgling) popular government in Iran didn't help the legitimacy of the doctrine either.
I assert that, if ZERT hadn't shamed Microsoft into action it is very likely that MS would have probably let the exploit float around for a month before they patched for it.
The only difference between a zero-day exploit and a normal exploit is whether the person who finds the exploit allows a fix to be crafted before (s)he releases the bug that allows it.
The main difference between Open Source groups like Mozilla and Microsoft is that (responsible) open source projects will fix potential security bugs whenever they're informed of them and whether or not there is an exploit available, while Microsoft seems to have a habit of holding off on fixing a bug unless the exploit is blatently obvious and/or there is an proof of concept exploit already in existence (and sometimes even in the wild).
Given the way that these guys are touting how Firefox is vulnerable because they were able to find a bug that they refused to warn the firefox team about (like that refusal is Firefox's fault) I wouldn't be at all surprised to find that they managed to get some funding (either direct or indirect) from Microsoftl.
Yeah.. that's the only to get moderated +5 troll... One moderation for troll followed by 4 'underrated' moderations.
That may not be true. The worst case is that, if a 'bored' imune system can lead to hypersensitivity, a totally sanitised environment may lead to you getting sensitive to things like skin dust or human hair, or something (anything) in the food you're eating. Your immune system grew up in millions of years of non-sterile envirnment and so a reasonable presumption is that if it's not seeing any pathogens, it's not being dilligent enough -- so it ups the sensitivity until background noise sounds like a signal.
The first clue that pointed me to the possibility that overly clean environments can lead to immune problems came from the difference between me and my middle sister.. We're pretty close to each other in a lot of ways, and have even managed to be mistaken for identical twins (when wearing heavy winter coats).
Since we've moved away from home, she's kept an immaculate house -- nothing out of place and incredibly clean.
I, on the other hand, have almost always had at least one cat and one roommate, clean on a sporadic basis, and once learned (empirically) that at least one species of ant can help eradicate a stubborn flea infestation.
The result: I have no known alergies, and she suffers from multiple alergies. It doesn't make much sense unless a bored immune system becomes hypersensitive.
I'd like to see what you have to say about Bennedict Arnold and Judas....
Hm.. Aren't you thinking of AT&T?
There would also be some real practical value to figuring out why (structurally speaking) there is so little female participation.
Because:
1: Your post is nowhere near as funny as it's parent, and,
2: My mod points expired yesterday.
OK. Time to go after that new MSN worm...
Well that means, if he's lucky, he might be out before the 2010 Olympics.
Things like the ODF format don't require MS to GPL anything -- They can implement it whenever they want without having to Open Source anything.
MS Can, and has, distributed GPL code for Windows.
Microsoft's proprietary licenses do not do a very good job of respecting the wishes of GPL code writers who want to ensure that their code remains free.
It's microsoft that appears to have deliberately designed "open source" licences so that they could not work with GPL licensed code.
The GPL doesn't specifically target Microsoft. If Microsoft wants a cease - fire, their best step is to pull their finger away from the trigger.