If I was a juror on a case such as this, I'd apply my knowledge of the subject (P2P technology, how IP works, "sharing" against "distribution" etc) and explain them to my fellow jurors.
Courts function properly when the experts are on the witness stand and can be cross-examined, not in the jury box. This is a bad idea for the exact same reason you wouldn't want a music producer on the jury to "explain" the recording business.
I should have mentioned that a key point of this thought experiment is that you are disinvested from the topic at hand.
Let's say they summon you to jury duty for two weeks. Now you have to forego your paycheck and the comforting glow of the CRTs in your mom's basement, just to listen to some certified moron lie about everything. Wouldn't you be a bit pissed off? I would.
Anyway, my understanding is that there's no process for 'jury nullification' in civil trials. I don't think the jury acted unjustly, however the law is clearly ridiculous.
Not entirely unprecedented. Nixon thought the 1960 election was stolen from him, but kept his mouth shut because he didn't want to risk his political career.
Absolutely, but there's nothing really inherently bad about it, which the wide-use of the Flash plugin demonstrates.
Apple/Real/Microsoft were just more concerned with shoving their logo in people's faces, obnoxious UIs, desktop popups, and stealing all your filetypes, than they were with building a quick-loading and nonbuggy plugin.
HTML5's approach has some real advantages because the video element can be manipulated by the page in ways that simply aren't possible with a plugin.
I don't see a problem with this approach. One of the silly things about HTML5 is that it looks like browser vendors are all going to run off and implement their own media stacks. Which just increases bloat and potential security issues. Why not just use WM, QT, or whatever comes with the OS?
Not to mention that if I'm RTFAing correctly, Firefox's <video> tag is already incompatible with Chrome's.
how since it was free it would be easily adopted by hardware makers who didn't need to pay for the privilege.
Problem is that nobody knows if this is true or not. Major manufacturers such as Apple would rather pay the MPEG tax than deal with a potential lawsuit. I don't know if this figures into Google's thinking, but they're obviously a big target.
Or maybe you should put the troll-smacking stick down and realize that Apple did indeed have USB in their home computers before anyone else did.
That factually isn't true either, virtually everything had USB hardware on board when the original iMac came out. The drivers were a mess until Win98 a month later though.
When you login to your Linux desktop, there's a ton of bash scripts and other startup software running behind the scenes. Getting a program to survive a reboot on a desktop system is not difficult.
I love when Linux fans come up with this list of textbook advantages, none of which would do anything to impede a serious malware author.
A trusted package repository
- Which does nothing to stop users from running Britney.rpm or whatever.
Files being executable are based on file permissions rather than the name,
- Very easily bypassed by using a tar file, a.desktop file, a package file, a Mozilla add-on file, etc etc etc. Techniques that are already common in the Windows malware world.
Linux users won't have root privileges by default
- Most malware can accomplish it's purpose as a regular user
Diversity
- Linux distros come with a crap loads of scripting languages, runtimes, and other abstractions. Besides, simply targeting Ubuntu will likely get you the majority of desktops.
Linux has no concept of autorun
- OK, I'll give you that one, but it's not really a widely used method.
The biggest defense Linux has against malware is the computer nerd sitting between the chair and the keyboard, and the lack of marketshare. Malware authors are in it for the money, and there's little profit in stealing ramen money from a handful of computer science students.
If you RTFA, they point out that a lot of this stuff comes from 'packrats'. From a preservation standpoint, it's important to get this stuff into a university library where someone can find it 20 years from now, rather than relying on underground FTP repositories and the like.
I've been using Linux for 10 years now. During that time I've seen several small business that I've supported with purchases rise with Linux on the desktop and fall as the whims of Linux users move towards pretendulation of Windows software.
Small Businesses are almost the worst place to convert to Linux, because they largely depend on the millions of vertical/custom Windows applications out there. Most of these applications aren't actively developed and aren't portable anyway. (VB, etc.)
In fact, the only place worse that Small Business for Linux marketshare gains would be Home users. Poor hardware compatibility, still no software. And for your mom, it's just a slow, brown clone of Windows.
That is why I propose that Linux should focus on the small Computer Science Student market.
The Unix release was version 3.0 from 1994. It would be extremely surprising if that code was in any workable form 15 years later. And it was probably Motif, which is no-go on Linux anyway.
Slashdot Mirror
> Its also proprietary, requiring a license to use their tools.
With the correct UI, Flash could be completely optional.
I highly doubt that wikipedia will require you to use Flash, but it is the player that is most widely installed.
Congratulations, you are white collar.
I've never heard of a US state law requiring employers to pay during jury duty. They simply can't fire you (in theory, enforcement is impossible).
If I was a juror on a case such as this, I'd apply my knowledge of the subject (P2P technology, how IP works, "sharing" against "distribution" etc) and explain them to my fellow jurors.
Courts function properly when the experts are on the witness stand and can be cross-examined, not in the jury box. This is a bad idea for the exact same reason you wouldn't want a music producer on the jury to "explain" the recording business.
I should have mentioned that a key point of this thought experiment is that you are disinvested from the topic at hand.
OK, here's a though experiment for you nerds.
Let's say they summon you to jury duty for two weeks. Now you have to forego your paycheck and the comforting glow of the CRTs in your mom's basement, just to listen to some certified moron lie about everything. Wouldn't you be a bit pissed off? I would.
Anyway, my understanding is that there's no process for 'jury nullification' in civil trials. I don't think the jury acted unjustly, however the law is clearly ridiculous.
Not entirely unprecedented. Nixon thought the 1960 election was stolen from him, but kept his mouth shut because he didn't want to risk his political career.
Absolutely, but there's nothing really inherently bad about it, which the wide-use of the Flash plugin demonstrates.
Apple/Real/Microsoft were just more concerned with shoving their logo in people's faces, obnoxious UIs, desktop popups, and stealing all your filetypes, than they were with building a quick-loading and nonbuggy plugin.
HTML5's approach has some real advantages because the video element can be manipulated by the page in ways that simply aren't possible with a plugin.
Your .bashrc file is owned by root?
I suspect you are trying to be 'technical' here, but the upshot is that you're 100% wrong.
Google is pretty much the master of 'buzz marketing'. The whole image of Google being cool and not evil was carefully crafted.
Plus as sopssa points out, they basically pay off people to use their stuff.
Pre-Google, search engines were integrated into heavyweight "portal" pages, and yes they were slower.
Even today google.com loads visibly faster than MSN.com.
It's an allegation that is too stupid to defend. Find me a successful technology company anywhere that hasn't focused on the marketing side.
We've been through this a couple of times now. Prove Microsoft's implementation is as secure as the one in Firefox, and I'll listen to you.
To look on the bright side, IE6 will finally die.
Yes, we have been through this before, and the conclusion was that shared libraries beat a multitude of statically compiled versions.
I'm certainly not implying that any implementation is any more insecure - they have all had their problems.
I don't see a problem with this approach. One of the silly things about HTML5 is that it looks like browser vendors are all going to run off and implement their own media stacks. Which just increases bloat and potential security issues. Why not just use WM, QT, or whatever comes with the OS?
Not to mention that if I'm RTFAing correctly, Firefox's <video> tag is already incompatible with Chrome's.
how since it was free it would be easily adopted by hardware makers who didn't need to pay for the privilege.
Problem is that nobody knows if this is true or not. Major manufacturers such as Apple would rather pay the MPEG tax than deal with a potential lawsuit. I don't know if this figures into Google's thinking, but they're obviously a big target.
Windows 7 is apparently coming with a H.264 codec as part of windows media. Question is how long it will take them to implement HTML5 video.
Or maybe you should put the troll-smacking stick down and realize that Apple did indeed have USB in their home computers before anyone else did.
That factually isn't true either, virtually everything had USB hardware on board when the original iMac came out. The drivers were a mess until Win98 a month later though.
When you login to your Linux desktop, there's a ton of bash scripts and other startup software running behind the scenes. Getting a program to survive a reboot on a desktop system is not difficult.
I love when Linux fans come up with this list of textbook advantages, none of which would do anything to impede a serious malware author.
A trusted package repository
- Which does nothing to stop users from running Britney.rpm or whatever.
Files being executable are based on file permissions rather than the name,
- Very easily bypassed by using a tar file, a .desktop file, a package file, a Mozilla add-on file, etc etc etc. Techniques that are already common in the Windows malware world.
Linux users won't have root privileges by default
- Most malware can accomplish it's purpose as a regular user
Diversity
- Linux distros come with a crap loads of scripting languages, runtimes, and other abstractions. Besides, simply targeting Ubuntu will likely get you the majority of desktops.
Linux has no concept of autorun
- OK, I'll give you that one, but it's not really a widely used method.
The biggest defense Linux has against malware is the computer nerd sitting between the chair and the keyboard, and the lack of marketshare. Malware authors are in it for the money, and there's little profit in stealing ramen money from a handful of computer science students.
Yes, but if you control the starbucks network, there's much easier ways to own people that don't rely on their internal network details.
If you RTFA, they point out that a lot of this stuff comes from 'packrats'. From a preservation standpoint, it's important to get this stuff into a university library where someone can find it 20 years from now, rather than relying on underground FTP repositories and the like.
Apple didn't really "support" UFS - many applications were incompatible with UFS, and 10.5 can't boot from it.
Yes, but SMB is a must for SMB.
Why would they do that when other companies like Google and Adobe pay Dell to preload their software?
There was no buy out. SBC bought AT&T and then rebranded Cingular to AT&T Wireless. Same management throughout.
I've been using Linux for 10 years now. During that time I've seen several small business that I've supported with purchases rise with Linux on the desktop and fall as the whims of Linux users move towards pretendulation of Windows software.
Small Businesses are almost the worst place to convert to Linux, because they largely depend on the millions of vertical/custom Windows applications out there. Most of these applications aren't actively developed and aren't portable anyway. (VB, etc.)
In fact, the only place worse that Small Business for Linux marketshare gains would be Home users. Poor hardware compatibility, still no software. And for your mom, it's just a slow, brown clone of Windows.
That is why I propose that Linux should focus on the small Computer Science Student market.
The Unix release was version 3.0 from 1994. It would be extremely surprising if that code was in any workable form 15 years later. And it was probably Motif, which is no-go on Linux anyway.