It was a colo. And the hosting company (the owner of the machines) gave the FBI the info needed to pinpoint the one single server they were after. The FBI took several racks of equipment the hosting company had in that colo instead of just the single machine.
Plenty of Apps that require connectivity to online networks force updates from time to time. Guess what? Steam had a required update?!?!? Blizzard forced users to run updates to continue using World of Warcraft?!!! Oh noes!
Seriously. I get that there is massive FUD now that Microsoft has bought out Skype, but that doesn't mean every single bit of normal behavior (like locking out and forcing updates on old versions of clients) is somehow a malicious news-worthy event in some grand conspiracy.
Wrong.... Apple doesn't have a software update mechanism for apps. There's a common in-app update system called Sparkle that most Mac apps use (like many Windows apps use SafeInstall), but it's entirely 3rd party, and I'm not sure that Skype even uses it.
SGI had and maintained its niche market for workstation graphics processing, especially in FX houses. They never were competitors in the data centers, and for a long time, nothing really stood up agains IRIX.
What killed SGI was an explosion in capabilities from the x86 market. Suddenly a maxed-out $3-4K machine from Dell with a decent NVidia or AMD card could beat the pants off of the $10K + machines SGI was making. In-house IRIX apps were ported to Linux or BSD, Windows apps skyrocketed in popularity, and SGI was done for.
SonicWall, the same company that shipped expensive "small business" routers that were worse than a Linksys WRT54G, and then had the nerve to charge for more than 5 internal IP addresses on top of that.
Some of their authors also like to copy/paste online tutorials (which I've seen done from my own website). Basically they're a cheap clearing house and don't do any real editing or verification of their publishing. Stick with O'Reily.
But much of the humor in Monty Python is focused around universal absurdity. That is, inherently absurd situations, that are general enough that most of their viewers can relate and see the humor.
Much like Dilbert, it's funny to the masses because almost everyone can find a similar situation in their personal experience. I'm certain this connection could have been made with Healthcare, Real Estate, or nearly any other professional industry. It's not limited to IT.
Not a penny of that was actually spent on the open-source platform. That was labor costs (project planning, custom coding, design, testing, and many many layers of management, auditing, and bureaucratic oversight), and I'm sure a very healthy chunk was spent in the data center costs (dedicated machines, load balancing, content delivery networks). Of course since it's a Federal project, the data center is also required to go through all those same layers of management, auditing, and bureaucratic oversight.
All things considered, $1.35 million is pretty damn cheap for something of this scope produced by and for the Federal government. I've seen small companies drop anywhere from $25k to $100k on custom Drupal sites, and the NYTimes paywall was $40 million.
He was calling his coin a "liberty dollar" which happens to be the name of a specific design issued by the US Govt in WW2. He put "USA" and "Trust in God" on the coins (instead of "In God We Trust"), along with several other things. In short, he did everything he could to convince his customers that these were actual coins issued by the U.S. Federal Government. That is counterfeiting, even if he wasn't exactly duplicating a standard issue coin.
No, that guy was doing something that was borderline counterfeit. He was intentionally trying to pass his currency off as Federally-backed and issued tender.
TWC is big enough that they can play hardball with the content providers to the benefit of their subscribers..
The reality is that since Time-Warner Cable IS A CONTENT PROVIDER they have very little incentive to do so, and instead have every temptation to stifle competitive content generation and distribution.
Even though the UVerse on-demand service runs on the same wires, it doesn't count against your bandwidth rate anyways. That data is routed completely differently than normal IP traffic.
Let me explain: at the moment US copyright laws demand that you register your work with some federal agency (or similar),
WRONG. Under US law, copyright inherently exists on all works at the point of original creation/publishing and belongs to the original author unless transfered. Copyright registration is an optional service so that copyright holders can have reliable proof of their copyright. Your copyrights exist and are enforceable whether you register or not.
The way the law seems to work I cannot get this particular individual to either stop using my image or pay me for its use. (I have contacted Apple, who seem to own the server the offending webpage is located on, with little result).
Send a DMCA takedown notice both to Apple as well as the contact info for the offending website owner. It doesn't cost anything, and it will go further than where you seem to have gotten so far.
From an infographics standpoint, bar and pie charts convey different meanings. Pie charts are useful for quickly visually approximating how much of the whole a particular part is (percentage). Bar charts, however, are very good at quickly conveying comparative sizes between the parts.
Sure, if you read into the chart enough you can deduce the same information from both, but at a quick glance you can interprit different types of correlative information from the two different chart styles. In this particular example, I think the bar graph is far more useful as the percentage of the total is meaningless. What's important is the comparison between languages, not the individual comparison to the collective data set.
One that's integrated with the store, only allows access to the people who have purchased, and only to the items they have purchased? That's a bit more complex than a simple FTP server.
And, they don't want to be responsible for hosting that stuff. If they take on that responsibility, they also must take on some kind of safeguards to protect them against the rogue developer I mentioned. That requires code and license auditing and other kinds of overhead and review which involve costly labor and management. Lawyers to read the fine print of every license submitted to them, additional servers in the data center (plus all the management and oversight that involves), account tracking, reps to deal with the developers when there's a difference of opinion, developers to review code submissions, etc. etc.
I doubt the potential financial gains offsets the costs.
I didn't say they have to distribute with the binaries, I said they have to provide access, which is what you described. They don't want to deal with complying or enforcing this condition of the GPL.
Imagine if a rogue publisher packaged up a GPL project, got it listed on the MS Marketplace, and didn't provide access to the source (it's happened with other online distributors). Because the GPL requires that the distributor comply with the terms, MS is liable for the actions of the rogue developer, even though they had no direct control over his actions.
The GPL is different from most EULAs and the BSD/MIT licenses in that it makes requirements on distributors, not just the users or those that want to monkey around with the source.
MS is covering their asses here because they don't want to do code reviews and license audits of every app submitted to them. That's not an unreasonable position to take, and is the exact same thing Apple did over VLC for these exact reasons.
The GPL specifcially states that if you distribute the binaries, you also must provide access to the source code. As the app store operator, MS doesn't have the ability to do this without adding extra functionality.
Of course MS isn't going to want to take on extra responsibilities required of them by any random schmoe's copyright license. So instead, they require that anyone who wants to publish through them has to abide by their licensing requirements. If the license you want to release under doesn't meet their requirements, it doesn't matter if it's open-source or not, it's not going to fly.
Slashdot Mirror
It was a colo. And the hosting company (the owner of the machines) gave the FBI the info needed to pinpoint the one single server they were after. The FBI took several racks of equipment the hosting company had in that colo instead of just the single machine.
Plenty of Apps that require connectivity to online networks force updates from time to time. Guess what? Steam had a required update?!?!? Blizzard forced users to run updates to continue using World of Warcraft?!!! Oh noes!
Seriously. I get that there is massive FUD now that Microsoft has bought out Skype, but that doesn't mean every single bit of normal behavior (like locking out and forcing updates on old versions of clients) is somehow a malicious news-worthy event in some grand conspiracy.
Wrong.... Apple doesn't have a software update mechanism for apps. There's a common in-app update system called Sparkle that most Mac apps use (like many Windows apps use SafeInstall), but it's entirely 3rd party, and I'm not sure that Skype even uses it.
So every virus for Macs will get killed in the next update? Very nice work for Apple if it happens that way.
Not really any different than Microsoft's monthly "Malicious Software Removal" update that's pushed for Windows.
Most professional rendering packages that are on renderfarms already have GPU rendering features.
Also, it's a lot easier to pack 2 Intel processors with 6 cores each into a 1U box than it is to create an equivalency with GPUs.
SGI had and maintained its niche market for workstation graphics processing, especially in FX houses. They never were competitors in the data centers, and for a long time, nothing really stood up agains IRIX.
What killed SGI was an explosion in capabilities from the x86 market. Suddenly a maxed-out $3-4K machine from Dell with a decent NVidia or AMD card could beat the pants off of the $10K + machines SGI was making. In-house IRIX apps were ported to Linux or BSD, Windows apps skyrocketed in popularity, and SGI was done for.
The iPhone 4 can output 720p which should look just fine on a screen that size.
When the only carrier who offers this new smaller factor SIM card is the only carrier licensed/authorized by Apple, then you have service lock-in.
SonicWall, the same company that shipped expensive "small business" routers that were worse than a Linksys WRT54G, and then had the nerve to charge for more than 5 internal IP addresses on top of that.
Some of their authors also like to copy/paste online tutorials (which I've seen done from my own website). Basically they're a cheap clearing house and don't do any real editing or verification of their publishing. Stick with O'Reily.
But much of the humor in Monty Python is focused around universal absurdity. That is, inherently absurd situations, that are general enough that most of their viewers can relate and see the humor.
Much like Dilbert, it's funny to the masses because almost everyone can find a similar situation in their personal experience. I'm certain this connection could have been made with Healthcare, Real Estate, or nearly any other professional industry. It's not limited to IT.
At which point the user alerted tech support with a loud screeching sound.
Not a penny of that was actually spent on the open-source platform. That was labor costs (project planning, custom coding, design, testing, and many many layers of management, auditing, and bureaucratic oversight), and I'm sure a very healthy chunk was spent in the data center costs (dedicated machines, load balancing, content delivery networks). Of course since it's a Federal project, the data center is also required to go through all those same layers of management, auditing, and bureaucratic oversight.
All things considered, $1.35 million is pretty damn cheap for something of this scope produced by and for the Federal government. I've seen small companies drop anywhere from $25k to $100k on custom Drupal sites, and the NYTimes paywall was $40 million.
He was calling his coin a "liberty dollar" which happens to be the name of a specific design issued by the US Govt in WW2. He put "USA" and "Trust in God" on the coins (instead of "In God We Trust"), along with several other things. In short, he did everything he could to convince his customers that these were actual coins issued by the U.S. Federal Government. That is counterfeiting, even if he wasn't exactly duplicating a standard issue coin.
No, that guy was doing something that was borderline counterfeit. He was intentionally trying to pass his currency off as Federally-backed and issued tender.
There are plenty of alternate currencies about that are perfectly legal.
TWC is big enough that they can play hardball with the content providers to the benefit of their subscribers..
The reality is that since Time-Warner Cable IS A CONTENT PROVIDER they have very little incentive to do so, and instead have every temptation to stifle competitive content generation and distribution.
Perhaps not, but with billions at your disposal, you can probably redefine "right".
Even though the UVerse on-demand service runs on the same wires, it doesn't count against your bandwidth rate anyways. That data is routed completely differently than normal IP traffic.
That's because everyone involved in making that ad loves their Apple products, even though Motorola flooded them with free samples.
WRONG. Under US law, copyright inherently exists on all works at the point of original creation/publishing and belongs to the original author unless transfered. Copyright registration is an optional service so that copyright holders can have reliable proof of their copyright. Your copyrights exist and are enforceable whether you register or not.
Send a DMCA takedown notice both to Apple as well as the contact info for the offending website owner. It doesn't cost anything, and it will go further than where you seem to have gotten so far.
Like all of Apple's for-sale music, it will almost certainly be AAC.
From an infographics standpoint, bar and pie charts convey different meanings. Pie charts are useful for quickly visually approximating how much of the whole a particular part is (percentage). Bar charts, however, are very good at quickly conveying comparative sizes between the parts.
Sure, if you read into the chart enough you can deduce the same information from both, but at a quick glance you can interprit different types of correlative information from the two different chart styles. In this particular example, I think the bar graph is far more useful as the percentage of the total is meaningless. What's important is the comparison between languages, not the individual comparison to the collective data set.
One that's integrated with the store, only allows access to the people who have purchased, and only to the items they have purchased? That's a bit more complex than a simple FTP server.
And, they don't want to be responsible for hosting that stuff. If they take on that responsibility, they also must take on some kind of safeguards to protect them against the rogue developer I mentioned. That requires code and license auditing and other kinds of overhead and review which involve costly labor and management. Lawyers to read the fine print of every license submitted to them, additional servers in the data center (plus all the management and oversight that involves), account tracking, reps to deal with the developers when there's a difference of opinion, developers to review code submissions, etc. etc.
I doubt the potential financial gains offsets the costs.
I didn't say they have to distribute with the binaries, I said they have to provide access, which is what you described. They don't want to deal with complying or enforcing this condition of the GPL.
Imagine if a rogue publisher packaged up a GPL project, got it listed on the MS Marketplace, and didn't provide access to the source (it's happened with other online distributors). Because the GPL requires that the distributor comply with the terms, MS is liable for the actions of the rogue developer, even though they had no direct control over his actions.
The GPL is different from most EULAs and the BSD/MIT licenses in that it makes requirements on distributors, not just the users or those that want to monkey around with the source.
MS is covering their asses here because they don't want to do code reviews and license audits of every app submitted to them. That's not an unreasonable position to take, and is the exact same thing Apple did over VLC for these exact reasons.
The GPL specifcially states that if you distribute the binaries, you also must provide access to the source code. As the app store operator, MS doesn't have the ability to do this without adding extra functionality.
Of course MS isn't going to want to take on extra responsibilities required of them by any random schmoe's copyright license. So instead, they require that anyone who wants to publish through them has to abide by their licensing requirements. If the license you want to release under doesn't meet their requirements, it doesn't matter if it's open-source or not, it's not going to fly.