Also, the value of a settlement should not be related to what you have paid for the product, but what damage was produced by the negligence of the organization that produced the product in question
So, if you pick up a random Linux distribution for free that has a serious security defect, then you should be able to sue for damages. Free is just one end of the scale of payment.
Paying for goods or services implies a level of expectation that does not exist when you receive something for free.
If you provide this protection only for paid software, people will stop using open source. To an extent, this already happens in some places. In many cases, management types I have met have refused to authorise the use of open source software because there is no warranty. There's nobody to sue when something goes wrong. Of course, this is based on a fallacious premise: that you can successfully sue a large software company when something goes wrong. If the premise becomes true because of a law, you can guarantee that every article comparing open source software with its proprietary rivals will mention this: "project foobar clearly has the best features of all the products we reviewed, but unfortunately affords you no protection under the Software Negligence Law, being free".
It is worth noting that once TSA was involved and had to question me about the meaning of my shirt, they did treat me with the utmost respect and without any malice. Indeed, the lead TSA agent recognized the absurdity of the situation and even apologized I had to go through all this, saying that he found the entire situation to be ridiculous and that he’d let me fly.
You've missed the bit about security auditing that the OP mentioned. I hope you remember the Apple file vault debacle, which allowed users to recover the file vault password by a simple one-line grep statement that you could copy & paste in terminal? It took Apple several years to close this hole.
It would be pretty naive to believe that iOS can be considered good enough for confidential information. But I guess the other poster has a point that it's pretty hard to use an iPad for anything useful anyway...
I haven't had it with a Mac, but I have had it with an Archos media player (destroying the player in the process) and a Nokia mobile phone. I don't see any reason why Macs are magically exempt from swollen batteries.
Once upon a time I used to by the minimum RAM with my MBP and upgrade using Crucial. However, for my first unibody MBP, this turned out to be a problem because the RAM was so new it couldn't be bought at Crucial and Apple's pricing was actually competitive with the only other place I could find it - Dell. It was more than a year before I could find the RAM I needed at anything less than a very high price.
So I've just bought an MBP Retina and the alleged dilemma of not being able to upgrade the RAM just made my decision easy. I simply bought one with 16Gb. I usually work on a two year cycle for refreshing laptops and I can't imagine 16Gb being too small two years hence.
It's nothing to do with the subscribers, it' the content. The BBC, for instance, only had the rights to broadcast the Olympics in the UK. If they accepted subscriptions from (for example) the USA, they would be breaking the terms of their contract.
we won't see legendary early stereo recordings like Solti's complete Ring cycle, finished in 1965, in the public domain for another couple of decades.
You can buy it on Amazon. What's the problem? It's always been the case that you've had to pay for great music in the past. Civilisation still hasn't collapsed.
I'm reading this on an MBP Retina with the resolution set to 1920 x 1080 and the display is sharp. I can only assume this is because of the pixel density (i.e. it's not really sharp but the blurry is too small to see).
Your criticisms of the article are partly valid. I say "partly" because you have clearly only partly read the article. For instance, the question of which Linux distro is answered in the first paragraph of page 2. My guess is that you read the first page and thought that was the whole thing. There are three more pages after that.
He won't get a death sentence. Most European countries will not extradite persons facing the death penalty. I'd be fairly confident that would include Sweden. If the USA extradited Assange and then executed him anyway, that would be the end of extraditions from almost everywhere in Europe to the USA.
The rape allegations are just that, and even the stated facts by claimants pretty much do not equate to rape.
Isn't that for the court in Sweden to decide? By the way, a British judge has already ruled that the allegations, if true, would constitute rape under English law. That is why the UK is trying to extradite him.
Oh, he exposed illicit facts, and behaviors of corrupt government agencies. THat's not a crime. That should be public knowledge.
If it is not a crime, why is Assange so nervous about the possibility of the US asking Sweden to extradite him? Sweden would just turn around and say "no, it's not a crime, go away USA".
During the Falklands-Malvinas War, the US Navy offered to hand over its only non-nuclear super-carrier ship, the Kennedy to the UK
That's the first time I've ever heard of that and I seriously doubt it is true. If nothing else, we had no aeroplanes that could be used on it.
The US did provide us with lots of military hardware like the latest Sidewinder missiles that could acquire targets behind the aircraft they were attached to and they were also pretty relaxed about us taking over their airbase on Ascension. So thanks for all that, but I think you'll find that they have been adequately repaid by Tony Blair allowing himself to be butt-fucked by George W Bush over the Iraq war.
the famous red london buses would wear a white-black swastika in the middle of all that red, to this day.
Britain had staved off the threat of invasion before the USA entered the war.
and the Bismarck would be exhibitied on the Thames as a sanctuary of the Triumphant Will
You can pretty much guarantee that if the Daily Mail says it, it is a lie.
I honestly don't understand the arguments in the USA regarding universal healthcare. This is something I would regard as a basic right. The people against it are effectively saying "poor people? Fuck 'em"
Re:too bad GCC is not relevant anymore thanks to L
on
GCC Switches From C to C++
·
· Score: 4, Informative
The GPL doesn't force you to give back. You need to have a read of it, it only forces you to "give forward".
Apple has now fully embraced clang/llvm for a couple of reasons: it was legally very difficult to for them to integrate gcc tightly with their IDE (by which I mean they would have to GPL Xcode if they linked directly to gcc); it is technically very difficult to integrate with an IDE - apparently the gcc code base is a complete mess as far as integration with other tools is concerned.
Clang/LLVM is financed by Apple and it is released under an Open Source licence. Call that parasitic if you like but because of Apple (in part) you now have a clean modern compiler toolchain that's a credible open source alternative to gcc. If nothing else, it means that the gcc dev team now have an incentive to improve their product because they have competition.
What is this "market" of which you speak? There is no market because Flash Player is given away. There's no money, in fact it is a drain on Adobe's resources.
Adobe makes its money on the content authoring tools. All they need to do is make those tools target HTML5 and H.264 and everything and everybody's happy. They still sell the authoring tools - in fact perhaps they sell more authoring tools - and they've transferred the drain of maintaining the target platform to the browser vendors.
Firefox; Linux; OpenOffice. Ironically in this Context Google is doing awfully well with Chrome; Android and Docs.
None of those are companies and, of them, only Linux really existed in the 90's.
I can think of plenty of examples of companies failing against Microsoft in the 90's but most of them failed because their product wasn't better than Microsoft's. The dominant word processor vendor of the early 90's (Word Perfect Corporation) failed because they didn't embrace Windows (3.x) whereas Microsoft did. The dominant spreadsheet vendor of the mid 90's (Lotus corporation) failed against Microsoft because they didn't embrace Win32 and Microsoft did.
The only example I can think of where somebody lost out to Microsoft with a technically superior product would be IBM with OS/2.
ALSO: How can a judge enact a punishment that is double that proscribed by law? This looks like a stupid decision just waiting to be overturned by an appeals court.
The judge didn't enact a punishment that is double that prescribed by law. That comment in the summary is alluding to the fact that the conviction was obtained on a charge of "conspiracy to defraud", not of "copyright infringement".
Presumably the prosecutors thought they had a better chance of conviction with that charge because merely linking to a site with copyright infringing material is not in itself infringing copyright (you haven't copied anything) whereas, they do have a fighting chance of proving that the copyright holder has been defrauded (lost revenue) and the defendant has conspired to make this possible.
Fraud is considered more serious than copyright infringement and so attracts a heavier punishment.
Of course that's impossible. They want to change the report but keep it the same. You just need to frame the request in such a way that they understand they have asked for a logical impossibility.
The optimal solution is the one that makes the store the most margin for the least amount of sales effort while not pissing off the customer so that they don't come back. Sell him the damn iPad.
Slashdot Mirror
Also, the value of a settlement should not be related to what you have paid for the product, but what damage was produced by the negligence of the organization that produced the product in question
So, if you pick up a random Linux distribution for free that has a serious security defect, then you should be able to sue for damages. Free is just one end of the scale of payment.
Paying for goods or services implies a level of expectation that does not exist when you receive something for free.
If you provide this protection only for paid software, people will stop using open source. To an extent, this already happens in some places. In many cases, management types I have met have refused to authorise the use of open source software because there is no warranty. There's nobody to sue when something goes wrong. Of course, this is based on a fallacious premise: that you can successfully sue a large software company when something goes wrong. If the premise becomes true because of a law, you can guarantee that every article comparing open source software with its proprietary rivals will mention this: "project foobar clearly has the best features of all the products we reviewed, but unfortunately affords you no protection under the Software Negligence Law, being free".
You have a six figure id and you still haven't realised that the summaries here are often misleading or even downright wrong.
From the victim's own blog:
It is worth noting that once TSA was involved and had to question me about the meaning of my shirt, they did treat me with the utmost respect and without any malice. Indeed, the lead TSA agent recognized the absurdity of the situation and even apologized I had to go through all this, saying that he found the entire situation to be ridiculous and that he’d let me fly.
You've missed the bit about security auditing that the OP mentioned. I hope you remember the Apple file vault debacle, which allowed users to recover the file vault password by a simple one-line grep statement that you could copy & paste in terminal? It took Apple several years to close this hole.
It would be pretty naive to believe that iOS can be considered good enough for confidential information. But I guess the other poster has a point that it's pretty hard to use an iPad for anything useful anyway...
Things have moved on...
http://www.technologyreview.com/news/428477/the-iphone-has-passed-a-key-security-threshold/
I haven't had it with a Mac, but I have had it with an Archos media player (destroying the player in the process) and a Nokia mobile phone. I don't see any reason why Macs are magically exempt from swollen batteries.
Once upon a time I used to by the minimum RAM with my MBP and upgrade using Crucial. However, for my first unibody MBP, this turned out to be a problem because the RAM was so new it couldn't be bought at Crucial and Apple's pricing was actually competitive with the only other place I could find it - Dell. It was more than a year before I could find the RAM I needed at anything less than a very high price.
So I've just bought an MBP Retina and the alleged dilemma of not being able to upgrade the RAM just made my decision easy. I simply bought one with 16Gb. I usually work on a two year cycle for refreshing laptops and I can't imagine 16Gb being too small two years hence.
It's nothing to do with the subscribers, it' the content. The BBC, for instance, only had the rights to broadcast the Olympics in the UK. If they accepted subscriptions from (for example) the USA, they would be breaking the terms of their contract.
we won't see legendary early stereo recordings like Solti's complete Ring cycle, finished in 1965, in the public domain for another couple of decades.
You can buy it on Amazon. What's the problem? It's always been the case that you've had to pay for great music in the past. Civilisation still hasn't collapsed.
I'm reading this on an MBP Retina with the resolution set to 1920 x 1080 and the display is sharp. I can only assume this is because of the pixel density (i.e. it's not really sharp but the blurry is too small to see).
Your criticisms of the article are partly valid. I say "partly" because you have clearly only partly read the article. For instance, the question of which Linux distro is answered in the first paragraph of page 2. My guess is that you read the first page and thought that was the whole thing. There are three more pages after that.
He won't get a death sentence. Most European countries will not extradite persons facing the death penalty. I'd be fairly confident that would include Sweden. If the USA extradited Assange and then executed him anyway, that would be the end of extraditions from almost everywhere in Europe to the USA.
First off, in what way is he a criminal.
He's broken the conditions of his bail.
The rape allegations are just that, and even the stated facts by claimants pretty much do not equate to rape.
Isn't that for the court in Sweden to decide? By the way, a British judge has already ruled that the allegations, if true, would constitute rape under English law. That is why the UK is trying to extradite him.
Oh, he exposed illicit facts, and behaviors of corrupt government agencies. THat's not a crime. That should be public knowledge.
If it is not a crime, why is Assange so nervous about the possibility of the US asking Sweden to extradite him? Sweden would just turn around and say "no, it's not a crime, go away USA".
Except in Lethal Weapon 2.
Anyway, has it occurred to you that Julian Assange is not an accredited Ecuadorian diplomat and therefore has no diplomatic immunity.
During the Falklands-Malvinas War, the US Navy offered to hand over its only non-nuclear super-carrier ship, the Kennedy to the UK
That's the first time I've ever heard of that and I seriously doubt it is true. If nothing else, we had no aeroplanes that could be used on it.
The US did provide us with lots of military hardware like the latest Sidewinder missiles that could acquire targets behind the aircraft they were attached to and they were also pretty relaxed about us taking over their airbase on Ascension. So thanks for all that, but I think you'll find that they have been adequately repaid by Tony Blair allowing himself to be butt-fucked by George W Bush over the Iraq war.
the famous red london buses would wear a white-black swastika in the middle of all that red, to this day .
Britain had staved off the threat of invasion before the USA entered the war.
and the Bismarck would be exhibitied on the Thames as a sanctuary of the Triumphant Will
Bismark was sunk before the USA entered the war.
I think the fact that you would rather lose a loved one instead of you life savings is really sad.
The fact that, in the USA, you can be put in the position where you must choose one or the other is a fail of epic proportions.
You can pretty much guarantee that if the Daily Mail says it, it is a lie.
I honestly don't understand the arguments in the USA regarding universal healthcare. This is something I would regard as a basic right. The people against it are effectively saying "poor people? Fuck 'em"
The GPL doesn't force you to give back. You need to have a read of it, it only forces you to "give forward".
Apple has now fully embraced clang/llvm for a couple of reasons: it was legally very difficult to for them to integrate gcc tightly with their IDE (by which I mean they would have to GPL Xcode if they linked directly to gcc); it is technically very difficult to integrate with an IDE - apparently the gcc code base is a complete mess as far as integration with other tools is concerned.
Clang/LLVM is financed by Apple and it is released under an Open Source licence. Call that parasitic if you like but because of Apple (in part) you now have a clean modern compiler toolchain that's a credible open source alternative to gcc. If nothing else, it means that the gcc dev team now have an incentive to improve their product because they have competition.
What is this "market" of which you speak? There is no market because Flash Player is given away. There's no money, in fact it is a drain on Adobe's resources.
Adobe makes its money on the content authoring tools. All they need to do is make those tools target HTML5 and H.264 and everything and everybody's happy. They still sell the authoring tools - in fact perhaps they sell more authoring tools - and they've transferred the drain of maintaining the target platform to the browser vendors.
but I'm not convinced that it isn't just sugar-coating on some other problem in at least some instances).
"You're too stupid to work here".
"I'm sorry but it would be a poor fit"
A "bad fit" covers a multitude of reasons without denting the ego too much.
Firefox; Linux; OpenOffice. Ironically in this Context Google is doing awfully well with Chrome; Android and Docs.
None of those are companies and, of them, only Linux really existed in the 90's.
I can think of plenty of examples of companies failing against Microsoft in the 90's but most of them failed because their product wasn't better than Microsoft's. The dominant word processor vendor of the early 90's (Word Perfect Corporation) failed because they didn't embrace Windows (3.x) whereas Microsoft did. The dominant spreadsheet vendor of the mid 90's (Lotus corporation) failed against Microsoft because they didn't embrace Win32 and Microsoft did.
The only example I can think of where somebody lost out to Microsoft with a technically superior product would be IBM with OS/2.
Check out his Facebook page for comparison.
ALSO: How can a judge enact a punishment that is double that proscribed by law? This looks like a stupid decision just waiting to be overturned by an appeals court.
The judge didn't enact a punishment that is double that prescribed by law. That comment in the summary is alluding to the fact that the conviction was obtained on a charge of "conspiracy to defraud", not of "copyright infringement".
Presumably the prosecutors thought they had a better chance of conviction with that charge because merely linking to a site with copyright infringing material is not in itself infringing copyright (you haven't copied anything) whereas, they do have a fighting chance of proving that the copyright holder has been defrauded (lost revenue) and the defendant has conspired to make this possible.
Fraud is considered more serious than copyright infringement and so attracts a heavier punishment.
the students learn how to use a GPS Java API
Of all the places on the Internet, I used to think Slashdot would be the one where people know the difference between Java and Javascript.
That's totally possible as long as you also have the wrong algorithm.
Of course that's impossible. They want to change the report but keep it the same. You just need to frame the request in such a way that they understand they have asked for a logical impossibility.
The optimal solution is the one that makes the store the most margin for the least amount of sales effort while not pissing off the customer so that they don't come back. Sell him the damn iPad.