From their point of view, they need to have the software in a known state so that they can troubleshoot the hardware. Are you seriously describing the original installation followed by all the crap a typical user throws at it as a useful "known state"?
Note: yes, all the above is a dramatic over-simplification.
Dramatic over-simplification it may be, but thanks. Despite vaguely knowing the rules about calculating the maximum efficiency of a heat engine (or at least having been taught them at one point), I don't think I've ever really got the why side of things before reading your explanation.
More bluntly, of what use is the parts of the Internet I can't even type the domain name for? As things now stand I CAN, and have, snarfed firmware directly from.com.tw sites where I couldn't read any of the text. Learned things from sites where I couldn't read anything but the code text and command lines. Seen images and understood even when the captions were meaningless to me.
Where did you find these sites? I'd guess via a search engine, in which case you didn't need to type the domain name at any point.
It starts from the assumption that the user is a criminal
*All* DRM starts from the assumption that the user is a criminal, and so should be locked out (by means of encrypting the media). Beyond that, in certain limited circumstances the DRM will reconsider that decision, and grant the user access to the media.
This holds true whether the DRM in question is from Apple, from Microsoft, or from somebody completely different, regardless of where your preference lies.
If there wasn't money being made there wouldn't be any spam. At least a tiny percent of the people who get this are acting on them.
1. Observe that there are vast quantities of spam being sent on the internet 2. Infer that people wouldn't be sending this spam if they didn't get some response and hence some profit 3. Spamvertise/pay somebody to spamvertise your product in order to latch on to this potential profit 4. Fail to profit 5. Watch as every other fool and his dog use your spam as evidence to start back at step one, perpetuating the spam pyramid 6. A pig. In a cage. On antibiotics.
The only people that are certain to profit from spam are those selling spam services. The rest might or might not be. I don't believe that the continued torrent of junk shows which is true.
I thought the Genuine Validation Toolkit being required for future updates started a long time ago, so I'm not sure why the fuss about that is only kicking up now.
On the other hand the new notification tool is an entirely different matter. This is pre-release software, being pushed as a high-priority update. WRONG. The only place I use Windows is at work, and in an attempt to keep that machine safe I have it notify me of necessary updates. That's a "live operating environment" to me, as I've got to do work on it. So, I'm having an update pushed towards me, that I can't use because the EULA forbids me to. And that's ignoring the fact that I only switch update notifications on so that I'll get security updates, which this clearly isn't.
There's also the question of updates requiring you to agree to an additional EULA. Assuming you hold EULAs to be legitimate, I've signed away enough rights on the one I had to agree with to install Windows in the first place. If future security updates (which are only necessary because as shipped the product is faulty) require me to have the notification tool installed, which requires me to agree to an additional EULA... I think that would be ample justification for a lawsuit.
We're talking a datacentre. I'd be interested to know what proportion of datacentre break-ins are to steal equipment, and what proportion are to steal/modify data. The latter is likely to involve a fair degree of sophistication.
Most "nerds" seem to be overwhelmingly against technologies to prevent consumers from using legitimately obtained digital content. As such it might be appropriate if Slashdot ("News for Nerds. Stuff that matters.") reflected this by not falling into the trap of defending them as being "to protect HDTV cable programming". But what do I know.
I do support the notion that certain basic services like healthcare should be provided by the state. But my comment was aimed more at your apparent suggestion that a single instance of a failed implementation demonstrates that the idea is broken.
The market economy works well for many things (not that I feel it's perfect, it's just the best set of compromises that I think we've found at the moment). But tell me, where do children whose parents have died fit into a system based purely on such principles?
United Kingdom? Heckle and be detained under anti-terrorism laws United States of America? 3 years detention without trial, and counting (I don't seriously put these two countries on a par with China or North Korea, but they are going backwards, not forwards)
I also love the way that you assume that one example of bad Government healthcare (and I'm not claiming that it's the only example) proves that all such institutions are useless.
If your house gets burgled, you have to delete all your music from your laptop when you get home. That's because the EULA says that your rights to any copies terminate as soon as you no longer possess the original CD.
Look, Sony are jerks. That's a given. But what right did you have before the EULA to keep copies of the CD after you no longer possessed it?
Similar things can be said about communications equipment. People investing because of buzzwords fuelled the dotcom bubble, but even though the investors could be blamed for this, the industry suffered.
Yes, that's simplified, and part of it was the fault of the industry talking things up. But even if OSS is an excellent concept, and is sustainable without venture capital, it can still get hurt. If investors start getting into it, resulting in OSS companies becoming overvalued, a bubble burst is inevitable. If that happens, OSS will very quickly get a bad name. And we'll only begin to realise how much a bad name will affect OSS when it actually happens.
Actually, unless I'm reading him badly wrong (or the Vatican, for that matter), he is. "He tells Man (a special creation that did not come from 'lower' beings)" reads to me as being direct creation of man, not evolution. I haven't seen the Vatican insist that man did not arise via the mechanism of evolution, and I think you'd certainly have difficulty finding many scientists saying so either.
The setup fee for WoW includes Blizzard producing the WoW client. The monthly subscription includes Blizzard running the game servers.
I dislike the concept of subscription software too. But I don't feel that WoW falls into this category. Imagine the scenario where Blizzard produce/sell game clients, and other companies sell subscription game server access. Clearly in that case you'd have to pay for both the game, and the service (unless some deal was worked out like tends to happen in the mobile phone industry). Why does in necessarily have to be different when the game client company is the same as the game server company?
In the same way an approximate assumption is made that the US government is representative of the people it claims to govern.
If the US people wish their country to pull out of the UN, they should make that view clear. For the moment though, they don't seem to be doing that, because they'd first have to recognise that they are a part of it.
Slightly off-topic, but I still don't understand the US take on the UN. I mean, they are aware that they are part of it, yes?
The UN has made plenty of mistakes, I accept that. However, break the name down: "United Nations". It isn't an us and them thing, it's us and *us*. No, that doesn't mean that you'll agree with everything the rest of the UN says, or that the rest of the UN will agree with you. But current behavious looks approximately like the state of California deciding that the US government isn't worth paying any attention to.
Each UN member should feel free to disagree with the rest of the UN, and to reflect that in policy. I don't believe the UN has ever been about denying the sovereignty of its constituent nations. But for don't forget that each UN member, in conjunction with the rest *is* the UN, until they make a decision to leave.
Slashdot Mirror
You can come up with crazy situations all day long,
Product activation itself *is* crazy. There's no need to spend all day coming up with additional situations.
but nobody is going to blame microsoft for not supporting onClick in emails
No, but I'll blame them for supporting Javascript in emails to any extent.
Note: yes, all the above is a dramatic over-simplification.
Dramatic over-simplification it may be, but thanks. Despite vaguely knowing the rules about calculating the maximum efficiency of a heat engine (or at least having been taught them at one point), I don't think I've ever really got the why side of things before reading your explanation.
More bluntly, of what use is the parts of the Internet I can't even type the domain name for? As things now stand I CAN, and have, snarfed firmware directly from .com.tw sites where I couldn't read any of the text. Learned things from sites where I couldn't read anything but the code text and command lines. Seen images and understood even when the captions were meaningless to me.
Where did you find these sites? I'd guess via a search engine, in which case you didn't need to type the domain name at any point.
*All* DRM starts from the assumption that the user is a criminal, and so should be locked out (by means of encrypting the media). Beyond that, in certain limited circumstances the DRM will reconsider that decision, and grant the user access to the media.
This holds true whether the DRM in question is from Apple, from Microsoft, or from somebody completely different, regardless of where your preference lies.
If there wasn't money being made there wouldn't be any spam. At least a tiny percent of the people who get this are acting on them.
1. Observe that there are vast quantities of spam being sent on the internet
2. Infer that people wouldn't be sending this spam if they didn't get some response and hence some profit
3. Spamvertise/pay somebody to spamvertise your product in order to latch on to this potential profit
4. Fail to profit
5. Watch as every other fool and his dog use your spam as evidence to start back at step one, perpetuating the spam pyramid
6. A pig. In a cage. On antibiotics.
The only people that are certain to profit from spam are those selling spam services. The rest might or might not be. I don't believe that the continued torrent of junk shows which is true.
I mean what kind of activity (other than nefarious) does one really need that requires that speed, when sipping coffee?
You don't drink much coffee, do you?
I thought the Genuine Validation Toolkit being required for future updates started a long time ago, so I'm not sure why the fuss about that is only kicking up now.
On the other hand the new notification tool is an entirely different matter. This is pre-release software, being pushed as a high-priority update. WRONG. The only place I use Windows is at work, and in an attempt to keep that machine safe I have it notify me of necessary updates. That's a "live operating environment" to me, as I've got to do work on it. So, I'm having an update pushed towards me, that I can't use because the EULA forbids me to. And that's ignoring the fact that I only switch update notifications on so that I'll get security updates, which this clearly isn't.
There's also the question of updates requiring you to agree to an additional EULA. Assuming you hold EULAs to be legitimate, I've signed away enough rights on the one I had to agree with to install Windows in the first place. If future security updates (which are only necessary because as shipped the product is faulty) require me to have the notification tool installed, which requires me to agree to an additional EULA... I think that would be ample justification for a lawsuit.
We're talking a datacentre. I'd be interested to know what proportion of datacentre break-ins are to steal equipment, and what proportion are to steal/modify data. The latter is likely to involve a fair degree of sophistication.
Living in a country that doesn't actually have fair use rights, I decided to avoid that phrase ;)
Most "nerds" seem to be overwhelmingly against technologies to prevent consumers from using legitimately obtained digital content. As such it might be appropriate if Slashdot ("News for Nerds. Stuff that matters.") reflected this by not falling into the trap of defending them as being "to protect HDTV cable programming". But what do I know.
I do support the notion that certain basic services like healthcare should be provided by the state. But my comment was aimed more at your apparent suggestion that a single instance of a failed implementation demonstrates that the idea is broken.
The market economy works well for many things (not that I feel it's perfect, it's just the best set of compromises that I think we've found at the moment). But tell me, where do children whose parents have died fit into a system based purely on such principles?
United Kingdom? Heckle and be detained under anti-terrorism laws
United States of America? 3 years detention without trial, and counting
(I don't seriously put these two countries on a par with China or North Korea, but they are going backwards, not forwards)
I also love the way that you assume that one example of bad Government healthcare (and I'm not claiming that it's the only example) proves that all such institutions are useless.
Look, Sony are jerks. That's a given. But what right did you have before the EULA to keep copies of the CD after you no longer possessed it?
Similar things can be said about communications equipment. People investing because of buzzwords fuelled the dotcom bubble, but even though the investors could be blamed for this, the industry suffered.
Yes, that's simplified, and part of it was the fault of the industry talking things up. But even if OSS is an excellent concept, and is sustainable without venture capital, it can still get hurt. If investors start getting into it, resulting in OSS companies becoming overvalued, a bubble burst is inevitable. If that happens, OSS will very quickly get a bad name. And we'll only begin to realise how much a bad name will affect OSS when it actually happens.
Actually, unless I'm reading him badly wrong (or the Vatican, for that matter), he is. "He tells Man (a special creation that did not come from 'lower' beings)" reads to me as being direct creation of man, not evolution. I haven't seen the Vatican insist that man did not arise via the mechanism of evolution, and I think you'd certainly have difficulty finding many scientists saying so either.
Do you have anything to back this up other than correlation? A *lot* of things other than contraception changed in the past 70 years...
No.
The setup fee for WoW includes Blizzard producing the WoW client. The monthly subscription includes Blizzard running the game servers.
I dislike the concept of subscription software too. But I don't feel that WoW falls into this category. Imagine the scenario where Blizzard produce/sell game clients, and other companies sell subscription game server access. Clearly in that case you'd have to pay for both the game, and the service (unless some deal was worked out like tends to happen in the mobile phone industry). Why does in necessarily have to be different when the game client company is the same as the game server company?
How different is this from a DSL provider charging both a setup fee and a monthly bill?
In the same way an approximate assumption is made that the US government is representative of the people it claims to govern.
If the US people wish their country to pull out of the UN, they should make that view clear. For the moment though, they don't seem to be doing that, because they'd first have to recognise that they are a part of it.
Slightly off-topic, but I still don't understand the US take on the UN. I mean, they are aware that they are part of it, yes?
The UN has made plenty of mistakes, I accept that. However, break the name down: "United Nations". It isn't an us and them thing, it's us and *us*. No, that doesn't mean that you'll agree with everything the rest of the UN says, or that the rest of the UN will agree with you. But current behavious looks approximately like the state of California deciding that the US government isn't worth paying any attention to.
Each UN member should feel free to disagree with the rest of the UN, and to reflect that in policy. I don't believe the UN has ever been about denying the sovereignty of its constituent nations. But for don't forget that each UN member, in conjunction with the rest *is* the UN, until they make a decision to leave.
Sued, maybe not. As long as they honour whatever compensation clauses exist in their Service Level Agreements, which will hurt.