No precedence required. You cant steal data that does not belong to you. Almost all photographs are completely digital now... you think that somehow there is no ownership because they lack the physical quality of pictures from the past? And accessing a website using fake credentials to access someone elses account is illegal in most countries and further it specifically breaks the user agreement for site usage. This was obviously a crime and there is no need to prove whether bitcoins have dollar value or not. If caught and prosecuted, any ruling would require the bitcoins to be returned (I assume). Which would effectively return the value to the owner regardless of whether or not the courts recognize this as currency.
I dont drive a car, but Id hardly take the time to complain when its used for analogy. Its pretty narrow to think that example needs to coincide with ur private life choices. You must spend a lot of time complaining about TV commercials too.
Its always bothered me that one of my laptop requires a closed source broadcom driver in order to get wireless working. It may be true that the desktop/server motherboards will always support booting from linux. And you can always build your own desktop/server from individually selected compatibele components. But that is not true when it comes to laptops. I cant select components to put together my own laptop. Instead I am forced to purchase a hardware package from a commercial computer hardware company (HP, Acer, Dell, etc). And these companies always answer to Microsoft first FYI: IMO Asus is the one company that is most linux friendly as most of their hardware components are open source compatible.
I generally agree that if it doesnt effect my usage of linux... then I do not care.
I think the problem occurs if UEFI becomes a default for all BIOS systems and you can no longer run an operating system without using it. Because UEFI requires the blessing from Microsoft in order to have the keys approved (I think). Right now... this isnt the case and UEFI can be disabled. However, if linux distributions like RedHat and others begin to apply for keys through Microsoft then there is no reason for manufactures to not make UEFI the default.
I also think the concept behind UEFI is valid. In that it may protect the users from trojans or rootkits being inserted into the kernel or drivers. So linus is saying that instead of applying for the Microsoft approved method, that the linux community should be looking for more open solutions that do not involve any single company like Microsoft.
I think linus is asking: what does Microsoft have to do with linux security? and... is there any reason why the linux community should have anything to do with their methods of implementing it?
As a linux user, you know that Microsoft is largely irrelivent. Red Hat support of the UEFI model by applying for keys, allows Microsoft to reinsert themselves where they are simply not wanted or needed.
If I take a picture in a hot air balloon of a sunset and happen to capture an empty field that I do not own, am I guilty?
In general... no.
But if your photo captures a pipe leaking oil into a stream, or police beating on defensless protestors, or in any other way caused discomfort for business or government... then YES, you are guilty and will receive appropriate punishment.
I stopped at terratoads... or whatever. Is he referring to video games or something? In any case, sounds like he is more concerned with how he is perceived then what he accomplished. Like he craves acceptance. Not a great quality in a leader IMO.
Secondly, groupon always seemed to me like one of those ideas that massive support because everyone things that this is something other people will use... and then they try it once and never do it again. Prove me wrong groupon.
I purchase an HP laptop about 4 years ago. There is no way to hand-build a laptop so there is no way to get out of the "window tax" as you can with a desktop PC by buying components or purchasing from a smaller computer shop.
So I never installed the Windows operating system and I wrote out every word of the EULA. I then read the EULA over and over again... and came to the clear conclusion that they were offering me the opertunity to recieve a refund on the Windows and other software. So I called and requested it. They denied any understanding of what I was talking about. So I sent email after email quoting the neccessary parts of the agreement showing them exactly where it said that they would return some amount of money to me. I called them over and over.
In the meantime, I operated the laptop from an SD card so as to preserve the computer in an untouched state. I specifically did not ever accept the EULA.
I want you to know the wording of the EULA clearly states that the windows software is NOT part of the computer product. And that I was not billed for two separate products on my Best Buy invoice. And the software EULA notes that it can be refunded separately. The wording is so clear as to leave no doubt that they are offering you the opertunity for a refund. And the reason that this wording is in the EULA is because to force the consumer to pay for two products when they only wanted one is a potential illegal violation of sale.
Finally, an HP customer representative definitively said to me: "You wont ever get a refund from us!". He was obviously frustrated with my persistance.
So I reported the potential anti-trust violation to HP corporate. I quoted from their own corporate guidance manual the part that said "do not condition the sale of one product on the purchase of another". The manual called this "a red flag" under the heading of "possible anti-trust violations". But still they did nothing.
I sent the information to a legal consumer advocacy group in Toronto... and they said that they would be interested in persuing this in court if I was willing to work with them. So I thought hard about this and realized that it was all too much trouble to get the (maybe) $40 that I deserved.
Now my laptop is dated. So I called up HP just yesterday and asked them what their policy is regarding refunding people who decide not also pay for the operating system that package with their laptops. The support staff said: "I never heard of this" and "just a minute... let me talk to my manager". And I was flabergasted that they would continue to say this. In light of the fact that I know more people running Ubuntu then Windows. I am a techie... but certainly HP support staff should know of the issue by now and have a quick definitive answer for me.
I swear to you... if this ever happens to me again. I am going to proceed to the courts if they dont honor the EULA they wrote. Because now I feel like I am not so alone. I feel that people really need to stand up for what is right here, because so many are effected. It is just rediculous that there is a company who is repeatedly being rewarded for forcing people to buy a product that they dont want or need.
And what really gets me... is that not only are they continually trying to take money from me and offer no value in return... but now there trying to reinsert themselves into my life with this whole BIOS fiasco.
Generally... I like the idea of competition. But in this case, I wish this company were wiped from the map. Becuase for me, they are just theives who continually make it harder for me to have nothing to do with them.
This is all very confusing to me. Im certain that I dont quite get it all yet. I just dont want to end up in a situation where Im required to hand control over to any single software or hardware company in order to run the software I TRUST. I could care less about Microsoft protecting their products against piracy. Good for them, do it. Because the tighter they hold on to their product, the more I expect others will find the value Ive found already in free operating systems and software.
In any case, to understand it a little more... I took a micro SD card with a linux installation on it down to my local Best Buy. Then I proceeded to reboot multiple computers to see if I could get linux running. In all case, I was able to get into the BIOS in order to get linux to successfully come up on those machines. I did this with about 10 or more computers to be sure and spread it across brands. Here is what I learned:
1. You have to shut of Secure Boot option and you need to turn off UEFI (to something like 'legacy' or 'CSM OS'). But all BIOS currently allowed this.
2. You cannot tell windows 8 to "SHUTDOWN" and expect to get into the BIOS. Shutdown simply performs a sleep to the hardrive... so you need to click "REBOOT" in order to have the computer recognize the Fn key to get into BIOS.
3. There is no standard on which keys to press to get into BIOS and it is not displayed on the screen during booting (not on any new computers at least). You have to guess and then try and try again... or read the computer manual I guess
4. Sony is the worst offender for having non standard BIOS access. I had to go home and research the manual to find out that BIOS accessed while the computer is OFF and then pressing a particular button on the side to bring up BIOS. Sony is strange.
5. The UBUNTU default kernel was able to detect and load all the sound cards, video cards, network cards that I tested it on. Although I think I also have the binary Broadcom module loaded, which may have helped.
6. I can "see" the Windows partitions of the main harddrive when I boot from the SD card into linux. However, when I wrote some files and made some directories, I was unable to "see" these changes when I rebooted into Windows. Although maybe I just didnt know how to find them... because I couldnt find the Windows shell terminal program I would use to easily navigate through the filesystem... and the Windows file manager is a real mess to use and ugly and seems to hide things from me for "my convenince" or something. Who knows what was going on... windows is a confusing and unfriendly operating system when you already know what you want to do. I would prefer the window manager not try to hold my hand so much while im busy working. Then again... maybe my attempts to write to the windows drive while running the linux OS was defeated by something in the BIOS security settings... although I though this was just for kernel and driver changes... but I repeat: I dont really understand what all this means.
7. In all cases I needed to restore the system to UEFI and Secure boot in order to get windows to run again. This would be a little irritating if I wanted dual boot and regularily switch between windows and linux. It would require BIOS access and changes for every switch. But not a big deal to me as I cant recall the last time I wanted to do that... nor can I recall a need for leaving any space on my hard drive for operating system i was forced to pay for but never used.
Anyhow... I do wish Microsoft all the best luck in stopping people from installing their OS on computers without pay for it. I really hope they succeed and drive more users to superior free software like linux. Maybe then we will get support to have manufacturing companies begin to honor the EULAs they write and start offering refunds for unused windows products. Because forcing the sale of one product on the condition of buying another is down right unamerican... as Sherman put it (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sherman_Antitrust_Act). And the
In my country, I am responsible for verifying that authenticity of the cash I receive. And the government provides little assistance in helping me verify it. Meaning that I can be easily dupped out of value by counterfeit money and sometimes held legally responsible if I try to pass it. I have always felt that it was pretty crappy of my country to dictate that I must except their paper for all debts and then not provide me with the tools to verify it and protect myself.
In general. I trust a computer to verify the authenticity of my money a lot more then my senses. And with bitcoin, this verification process can be spread over many other computers as well. My trust in bitcoin would be far greater then paper cash by a long shot.
The other 'trust' people generally refer to is whether or not the cash they accept will retain value. With a inflationary model like most paper cahs, the answer tends to "no" and with deflation the answer is "yes".
So the question of trust moves from the reciever to the sender. Will the person who wishes to obtain bitcoin for paying for goods be able to obtain it. That is the question that remains open. Will I be able to get my hands on it when I need to buy something? Will my customers be able to get their hands on it to pay for the goods they want to purchase from me? Or will I be able to obtain enough flow of it to pay regular wages?
Hoping to see other people suffer injuries without being injured oneself is not hypocritical. It is callous, perhaps sociopathic.
You hope the spectators are justly compensated, but they already have been. What could be more appropriate than suffering an injury themselves?
Well, I dont wish this upon you, but according to your logic, it would be appropriate for you to be injured next. For viewing their injuries as appropriate.
Because you just said: people should be injured for wishing injury on others... and... its an appropriate justice for those people to get injured for wishing injury on others.
But I certainly dont wish the injury thats coming to you. Simply because I dont wish injury on myself.
Alternatively let the Linux Foundation, or better yet, some vendor agnostic association, like the PCI SIG should handle the keys. Having Microsoft handle the keychain is bonkers.
Thats no a solution. The user should have control of their own hardware and decided for themselves what is and is not approved software. If microsoft wants to remove this power from the hardware owners by taking on the role of the user and signing their own stuff... fine. Just dont make everyone use their system. No one entity should decide what software you can or cannot put onto the computer you own.
I have a personal opinion that if you cannot install a Virus on your computer then it really is not a computer. If you cant have 100% control over the software you run on your PC then its not really a computer. Because without complete control of the software controlling the hardware there is no way to guarantee that you can get full value out of the hardware you paid for. You see this in routers... were the same hardware model is sold for $60, $100, $300 and $1000. It the same box you paid for, except the software installed on the cheaper models is meant to limit and cripple the functional potential of the hardware.
There is a number of us who do not buy computers for the software it comes with. We instead only consider the hardware, because we know that we already have access to the software that will maximize its potential. Despite this fact, we continue to pay a dying monopoly (microsoft) for added software that we never want and never use. We could care less about how Microsoft tries to protect itself from pirating, because we have nothing to do with this. But now, we see that not only does Microsoft want us to continue paying them for nothing, they want to force us to use their inferior software products. And they want to have control over how we use the hardware we paid for.
Nobody should be in a possition to decide how we use hardware. Not microsoft, not a free software group... nobody. Its just giving one entity too much control. And we know from the past, that this simply leads to stagnent and weak products and with added expense for consumers.
Because Linus knows what we all do, that this will end badly for RedHat. MS will come up with a reason to break booting RedHat later. No one plays with MS and comes out ahead.
I see this as being bad for smaller linux distributions not the few who deside to play with Microsoft. Im sure a commercial vendor like MS would love to see the hundreds of linux varients suddenly be reduced to a handful of large and commercially approved distributions.
I should be able to "roll my own" linux at any time. There is a serious problem with only having a few people with the keys to build linux kernels. Have you noticed what is happening with Ubuntu? They are actively taking keystrokes from your desktop and shipping that information out to various vendors (like amazon). And then they are allowing those vendors to send images and product information directly onto your system that appear while viewing your local application and data. It is a huge privacy concern. Some may like having this information available and not mind the potential security leaks. But no matter what direction any single linux distribution takes, the users should at any time be able to switch to one of the many hundreds of others currently available.
If you think it is OK to ask for permission from Microsoft to sign your kernels or whatever is required... just imagine how long you will wait for MS to deliver when you come up with your own new-and-improved Ubuntu/redhat/linux distribution.
Linux is superior to any other operating system, because of the many thousands and thousands of independent developers around the world. There is no way for any single company to ever catch up to linux development at this point. Even microsoft could not afford to pay all the developers around the world working on linux for the hours spent. It will be a real shame if hardware vendors fold to Microsoft presures in their attempts to limit the further growth of linux.
Microsoft is trying to turn the PC industry into a limited device like a tablet or smart phone. Where the hardware is handcuffed by the whims of the software controlling it. Or worse, your device is limited by the service provider you purchased it through.
There are a number of people who do not use microsoft products on their computers at all. Its bad enough that these people are forced to support a dying software monopoly like microsoft every time they want to purchase a new pc... but now they will be forced to run proprietary code at the core of everything else they wish to install on it. As a result, every user of such a PC will need to trust Microsoft to allow them to operate their computer hardware in the way that they desire. And they will need to blindly trust compiled code from a company that appears to have a history of abuse in their dealings with manufactures and competitors. Not to mention the fact that existing Microsoft operating systems are generally poorly designed and coded as evident by having the highest number of bugs, viruses, malware and keyloggers.
From my personal perspective: I would love to stop paying Microsoft over and over again for products that I never want and never use. But now it appears that this useless company (to me) is trying to insert themselves as the underlying and embeded system to decide whether or not I can use my computer hardware in the manner I desire. I just see this as another reason why Microsoft will continue to take money from me for years to come and essentially provide me with nothing. Well... maybe they will provide me with insecurity.
From this content, it is apparent that the original submitter did not know what ATP meant at the time of submission. Because the quoted article doesnt define it either.
i love how this summary explains what an ion is, but assumes i know the definitions of black hole, x-ray, and solar mass. great writing, folks!
I liked the way it is titled "...At Nearly the Speed of Light", but without bothering to mention the measured speed. For those who want real information: "84 percent of its theoretical maximum". Where I assume theoretical maximum is at or near the speed of light.
Your progress bar may have been accurate as far as the total task completion, but not as an estimate of the time remaining to complete it.
It is well known in coputer science that there is no way to determine through programming how long a process will take to complete, or even whether it is guaranteed to complete at all. Combine that with the fact that your program does not get complete control of the CPU and instead shares time with other tasks.
It appears that the Act is trying to prevent installation of programs that 'do things' without the computer users consent. Where 'do things' are things like collecting and transmitting private data from the owners pc. It does not seem to prevent a computer from releasing this data when the user has been specifically informed and agreed to the conditions.
The suggested amendments by the corporate interests suggest that programs should be able to be installed without the computer owners permission or knowledge. And that these programs should be able to monitor the activities of the user and report secretly without the owners knowledge whenever the program suspects that the user is breaking 'any law'. Where 'any law' is: "any law of Canada, of a province or municipality of Canada or of a foreign state".
Logical conclusion:
- these corporations want to install programs that monitor and control your computer usage and secretly collect this information.
- these corporations want to limit the usability of your computer when it conflicts with their interests (profits).
- these corporations want you to abide by arbitrary laws of foreign states!!! Circumventing our own legal process.
A reasonable solution:
- do NOT allow these changes to be implemented into the Act.
- require these corporations to provide all users with consent prior to installing what is effectively corporate backed spyware.
After all... with the existing act, the corporations are still allowed to have these programs installed on your computer. The only difference is that as the law stands, you will be informed about it and you will be able to decide whether or not you want to install software that would allow them to monitor and control what you can do with your own computer.
- do not allow foreign states to dictate how we are allowed to operate our own computers within our own borders.
I seriously can't put up there with education. Internet access, while really cool and fun, is still in the category of luxury item. You can get by just fine without it.
I think an Internet connection is more important then access to education. I mean once basic education is provided, more can be learned online then through school and at a faster rate and for far less money. If you havent noticed, a lot of education programs have been moving online and most of it is free. And this is not limited to basic information, but higher and specialized education. The Internet is a great source of education and I believe it now exceeds anything you can receive through traditional sources. The only difference now is the recognized certification you still need to pay for. But this too will change (IMO). As an employer, I would much rather have an employee who knows how to educate themselves online vs a worker who requires a structured institution to gather the same knowledge.
Further, online education does not discriminate against the poor. It does not discriminate based on borders. It does not discriminate on age, sex, etc.
For me: I went through higher education, but a couple of years ago I realized that I did have learned more online then through formal education and work experience combined.
you can always go to the public library to use it there.
Have you been to a library lately? In my city, the library has an increasing space of rows of computers on tables. These computers are almost always full with a signup waiting list. Then there are the rows of empty tables with people sitting using their own laptops. So libraries here are exactly that: free access to wifi/internet. And they just cant seem to keep up with the demand for it..... and no... not everyone is surfing for porn.
Internet access should be a right. Have you tried to get a job lately without it? Just go into a major grocery chain or department store and try to hand them your resume. They will tell you to submit it online. Taking the Internet away should be similar to removing other rights, like freedom of liberties.
Why would you speak negatively of the idea of providing basic free wifi to the masses? Just because you can afford it is no reason to condemn those who cannot.
My personal rule of thumb is if its a drug that so powerful it can leave the person with lifelong mental illness and brain damage from a single usage? then its probably just too damned risky to allow, unless the populace is willing to pay for the lifelong mental treatment of those that get burnt.
These drugs already exist and are entirely legal. They're called solvents. You can buy them just about everywhere.
Reality is that most people protect themselves when properly educated about the real risks involved in their behaviour. Otherwise, all drug users would probably just be sniffing glue, because its cheap and easy to aquire.
So ur argument that a drug should not be restricted or controlled simply because it is too dangerous is already not in practice.
The article is wrong. It specifically mentions that the accellerometer inside the iphone is inventive, but not a new invention. The combination of inventions is a new patentable invention as recognized by the WIPO (world patents). It may require the licensing of existing patents to combine them into a new one, but this is always the way patents work.
My argument is that we do not see these invensions as invensions because they are not marketed as such. As an example, try to locate the patent behind an accellerometer inside a cell phone. Also, try to find out exactly what chip is being used in the iphone accellerometer or how many axis it has or the degree of angle accuracy, or the speed of these calculations or the code to communicate with it. The average consumer will not be able to find this information, let alone have it marketed to them. Im not saying that it is impossible to find, but rather there is absolutely no marketing it as an invention. Instead, what is marketed is the resulting features. For example, the iphone can be tilted and the displayed page will tilt with it. Thus the consumers see this invention as a benefit improvement. Because customers do not by on technology features alone, they buy on the idea of how they will use it.
Clearly the lightbulb is an invention, and yet Edison did not invent tunksten or the vacuum or electricity in general. And he wasnt alone in his idea that a filament electrified inside a vaccum was the way to proceed. He combined many failed attempts and stumbled apon one that worked. So if combining elements of the past in novel ways to create something new is NOT an invention, then the light bulb is NOT an invention. To suggest that building on the past does not constitute inventions that can change the world, then the author of this article is defying common sense and disagreeing with patent offices around the world.
I think the article is confusing invention with inventor. I do believe that inventions are continuing at a stagering rate. The difference now is that we rarely see it as coming from a single inventor. Often inventions are released on behalf of a corporation or the patents are licensed through a corporation. Inventions are also often incorporated through an existing product line because that is where there is an existing profit model. So new inventions are sometimes hidden from view and not specifically announced to the public as they are marketing benefits, not technology features. For example, just try to find out exactly what technology is inside an iphone and you will be bombarded by marketing on what you can do with it, but minimal information on the working technology that drives it.
Oh, and another quick point. Some forms of music are always condemned to poverty. If it's not popular, people don't listen or buy the music. Comparing "Pop" or "Rock" to Jazz has always showed a wage/income disparity with musicians.
Your opinions about music are irrelevant. The article is quoting the number of plays to the amount returned to the artist.
Also, it is clear that in the past, it has been beneficial for the distribution industry to keep the number of artists to a minimum in order to reduce marketing, production, distribution and legal negotiations. Since most of these costs are now born by the customer directly, it is yet to be seen what style of music the world will demand. Especially considering that most of the world is culturally different from you and has not received the marketing you have received in order to direct your listening preferences.
Do you ever stop to wonder how many people actually like a "pop"ular artist... vs how many people like the artist because someone they like and respect already likes that artist? If not, then please contemplate the "boy band" business model.
I trust Google not to release more information to governments than they have to, but people need to understand that Google must comply with legal requests for information from the governments of countries they have operations in. I don't know if Facebook is any better or worse in this regard.
Google and Facebook get paid money to provide information to the courts and other legal entities. It is in their financial interest to receive and comply to these requests. IMO, they make sure your data remains in a clear text and less secure format then it could otherwise be just to be sure that they can charge the service fees to provide the requested information. For example, why doesnt Gmail have an encryption function for gmail to gmail correspondence?
Facebook on the other hand I do not trust to keep my information to themselves, I'm sure they'd rather get a quick buck now than play the long game like Google does, and they don't seem to care much about their reputation.
Im not suggesting your wrong. However, Ive never seen the page on facebook where a company could request to purchase information about a user. It seems that if Facebook was making money by selling user information to corporations, that it would be pretty easy to supply proof of that, as Facebook would need to market this service to corporations and make it available to be requested. Where is the proof? I have yet to see any report from any company or a whistleblower showing that Facebook is providing this as a paid service. Maybe Im wrong. Maybe facebook is selling private information to the highest bidder. If so, please provide me with the link, I would like to read about it.
So far, all I see is corporations with low moral standards requesting private passwords to collect this information themselves directly from the users.
I dont agree that this is any indication that the government is actively against us. But really... do they need to practice right in faces? Its clearly dangerous behaviour to be flying aircraft so low between buildings and over traffic and pedestrians. This is stupid reckless behaviour. I hope those who organized these events are properly punished for it.
This appears more like the filming of a movie or car commercial. But in those case, you would expect traffic and pedestrians to be kept at bay.
Slashdot Mirror
No precedence required. You cant steal data that does not belong to you. Almost all photographs are completely digital now... you think that somehow there is no ownership because they lack the physical quality of pictures from the past? And accessing a website using fake credentials to access someone elses account is illegal in most countries and further it specifically breaks the user agreement for site usage. This was obviously a crime and there is no need to prove whether bitcoins have dollar value or not. If caught and prosecuted, any ruling would require the bitcoins to be returned (I assume). Which would effectively return the value to the owner regardless of whether or not the courts recognize this as currency.
I dont drive a car, but Id hardly take the time to complain when its used for analogy. Its pretty narrow to think that example needs to coincide with ur private life choices. You must spend a lot of time complaining about TV commercials too.
The best chance of further exploration is if scientist predict not only life, but also, that it is delicious.
Its always bothered me that one of my laptop requires a closed source broadcom driver in order to get wireless working. It may be true that the desktop/server motherboards will always support booting from linux. And you can always build your own desktop/server from individually selected compatibele components. But that is not true when it comes to laptops. I cant select components to put together my own laptop. Instead I am forced to purchase a hardware package from a commercial computer hardware company (HP, Acer, Dell, etc). And these companies always answer to Microsoft first FYI: IMO Asus is the one company that is most linux friendly as most of their hardware components are open source compatible.
I generally agree that if it doesnt effect my usage of linux... then I do not care.
I think the problem occurs if UEFI becomes a default for all BIOS systems and you can no longer run an operating system without using it. Because UEFI requires the blessing from Microsoft in order to have the keys approved (I think). Right now... this isnt the case and UEFI can be disabled. However, if linux distributions like RedHat and others begin to apply for keys through Microsoft then there is no reason for manufactures to not make UEFI the default.
I also think the concept behind UEFI is valid. In that it may protect the users from trojans or rootkits being inserted into the kernel or drivers. So linus is saying that instead of applying for the Microsoft approved method, that the linux community should be looking for more open solutions that do not involve any single company like Microsoft.
I think linus is asking: what does Microsoft have to do with linux security? and... is there any reason why the linux community should have anything to do with their methods of implementing it?
As a linux user, you know that Microsoft is largely irrelivent. Red Hat support of the UEFI model by applying for keys, allows Microsoft to reinsert themselves where they are simply not wanted or needed.
If I take a picture in a hot air balloon of a sunset and happen to capture an empty field that I do not own, am I guilty?
In general... no.
But if your photo captures a pipe leaking oil into a stream, or police beating on defensless protestors, or in any other way caused discomfort for business or government... then YES, you are guilty and will receive appropriate punishment.
I bet most stopped right there.
I stopped at terratoads... or whatever. Is he referring to video games or something? In any case, sounds like he is more concerned with how he is perceived then what he accomplished. Like he craves acceptance. Not a great quality in a leader IMO.
Secondly, groupon always seemed to me like one of those ideas that massive support because everyone things that this is something other people will use... and then they try it once and never do it again. Prove me wrong groupon.
I purchase an HP laptop about 4 years ago. There is no way to hand-build a laptop so there is no way to get out of the "window tax" as you can with a desktop PC by buying components or purchasing from a smaller computer shop.
So I never installed the Windows operating system and I wrote out every word of the EULA. I then read the EULA over and over again... and came to the clear conclusion that they were offering me the opertunity to recieve a refund on the Windows and other software. So I called and requested it. They denied any understanding of what I was talking about. So I sent email after email quoting the neccessary parts of the agreement showing them exactly where it said that they would return some amount of money to me. I called them over and over.
In the meantime, I operated the laptop from an SD card so as to preserve the computer in an untouched state. I specifically did not ever accept the EULA.
I want you to know the wording of the EULA clearly states that the windows software is NOT part of the computer product. And that I was not billed for two separate products on my Best Buy invoice. And the software EULA notes that it can be refunded separately. The wording is so clear as to leave no doubt that they are offering you the opertunity for a refund. And the reason that this wording is in the EULA is because to force the consumer to pay for two products when they only wanted one is a potential illegal violation of sale.
Finally, an HP customer representative definitively said to me: "You wont ever get a refund from us!". He was obviously frustrated with my persistance.
So I reported the potential anti-trust violation to HP corporate. I quoted from their own corporate guidance manual the part that said "do not condition the sale of one product on the purchase of another". The manual called this "a red flag" under the heading of "possible anti-trust violations". But still they did nothing.
I sent the information to a legal consumer advocacy group in Toronto... and they said that they would be interested in persuing this in court if I was willing to work with them. So I thought hard about this and realized that it was all too much trouble to get the (maybe) $40 that I deserved.
Now my laptop is dated. So I called up HP just yesterday and asked them what their policy is regarding refunding people who decide not also pay for the operating system that package with their laptops. The support staff said: "I never heard of this" and "just a minute... let me talk to my manager". And I was flabergasted that they would continue to say this. In light of the fact that I know more people running Ubuntu then Windows. I am a techie... but certainly HP support staff should know of the issue by now and have a quick definitive answer for me.
I swear to you... if this ever happens to me again. I am going to proceed to the courts if they dont honor the EULA they wrote. Because now I feel like I am not so alone. I feel that people really need to stand up for what is right here, because so many are effected. It is just rediculous that there is a company who is repeatedly being rewarded for forcing people to buy a product that they dont want or need.
And what really gets me... is that not only are they continually trying to take money from me and offer no value in return... but now there trying to reinsert themselves into my life with this whole BIOS fiasco.
Generally... I like the idea of competition. But in this case, I wish this company were wiped from the map. Becuase for me, they are just theives who continually make it harder for me to have nothing to do with them.
This is all very confusing to me. Im certain that I dont quite get it all yet. I just dont want to end up in a situation where Im required to hand control over to any single software or hardware company in order to run the software I TRUST. I could care less about Microsoft protecting their products against piracy. Good for them, do it. Because the tighter they hold on to their product, the more I expect others will find the value Ive found already in free operating systems and software.
In any case, to understand it a little more... I took a micro SD card with a linux installation on it down to my local Best Buy. Then I proceeded to reboot multiple computers to see if I could get linux running. In all case, I was able to get into the BIOS in order to get linux to successfully come up on those machines. I did this with about 10 or more computers to be sure and spread it across brands. Here is what I learned:
1. You have to shut of Secure Boot option and you need to turn off UEFI (to something like 'legacy' or 'CSM OS'). But all BIOS currently allowed this.
2. You cannot tell windows 8 to "SHUTDOWN" and expect to get into the BIOS. Shutdown simply performs a sleep to the hardrive... so you need to click "REBOOT" in order to have the computer recognize the Fn key to get into BIOS.
3. There is no standard on which keys to press to get into BIOS and it is not displayed on the screen during booting (not on any new computers at least). You have to guess and then try and try again... or read the computer manual I guess
4. Sony is the worst offender for having non standard BIOS access. I had to go home and research the manual to find out that BIOS accessed while the computer is OFF and then pressing a particular button on the side to bring up BIOS. Sony is strange.
5. The UBUNTU default kernel was able to detect and load all the sound cards, video cards, network cards that I tested it on. Although I think I also have the binary Broadcom module loaded, which may have helped.
6. I can "see" the Windows partitions of the main harddrive when I boot from the SD card into linux. However, when I wrote some files and made some directories, I was unable to "see" these changes when I rebooted into Windows. Although maybe I just didnt know how to find them... because I couldnt find the Windows shell terminal program I would use to easily navigate through the filesystem... and the Windows file manager is a real mess to use and ugly and seems to hide things from me for "my convenince" or something. Who knows what was going on... windows is a confusing and unfriendly operating system when you already know what you want to do. I would prefer the window manager not try to hold my hand so much while im busy working. Then again... maybe my attempts to write to the windows drive while running the linux OS was defeated by something in the BIOS security settings... although I though this was just for kernel and driver changes... but I repeat: I dont really understand what all this means.
7. In all cases I needed to restore the system to UEFI and Secure boot in order to get windows to run again. This would be a little irritating if I wanted dual boot and regularily switch between windows and linux. It would require BIOS access and changes for every switch. But not a big deal to me as I cant recall the last time I wanted to do that... nor can I recall a need for leaving any space on my hard drive for operating system i was forced to pay for but never used.
Anyhow... I do wish Microsoft all the best luck in stopping people from installing their OS on computers without pay for it. I really hope they succeed and drive more users to superior free software like linux. Maybe then we will get support to have manufacturing companies begin to honor the EULAs they write and start offering refunds for unused windows products. Because forcing the sale of one product on the condition of buying another is down right unamerican... as Sherman put it (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sherman_Antitrust_Act). And the
In my country, I am responsible for verifying that authenticity of the cash I receive. And the government provides little assistance in helping me verify it. Meaning that I can be easily dupped out of value by counterfeit money and sometimes held legally responsible if I try to pass it. I have always felt that it was pretty crappy of my country to dictate that I must except their paper for all debts and then not provide me with the tools to verify it and protect myself.
In general. I trust a computer to verify the authenticity of my money a lot more then my senses. And with bitcoin, this verification process can be spread over many other computers as well. My trust in bitcoin would be far greater then paper cash by a long shot.
The other 'trust' people generally refer to is whether or not the cash they accept will retain value. With a inflationary model like most paper cahs, the answer tends to "no" and with deflation the answer is "yes".
So the question of trust moves from the reciever to the sender. Will the person who wishes to obtain bitcoin for paying for goods be able to obtain it. That is the question that remains open. Will I be able to get my hands on it when I need to buy something? Will my customers be able to get their hands on it to pay for the goods they want to purchase from me? Or will I be able to obtain enough flow of it to pay regular wages?
Hoping to see other people suffer injuries without being injured oneself is not hypocritical. It is callous, perhaps sociopathic.
You hope the spectators are justly compensated, but they already have been. What could be more appropriate than suffering an injury themselves?
Well, I dont wish this upon you, but according to your logic, it would be appropriate for you to be injured next. For viewing their injuries as appropriate.
Because you just said: people should be injured for wishing injury on others... and... its an appropriate justice for those people to get injured for wishing injury on others.
But I certainly dont wish the injury thats coming to you. Simply because I dont wish injury on myself.
Alternatively let the Linux Foundation, or better yet, some vendor agnostic association, like the PCI SIG should handle the keys. Having Microsoft handle the keychain is bonkers.
Thats no a solution. The user should have control of their own hardware and decided for themselves what is and is not approved software. If microsoft wants to remove this power from the hardware owners by taking on the role of the user and signing their own stuff... fine. Just dont make everyone use their system. No one entity should decide what software you can or cannot put onto the computer you own.
I have a personal opinion that if you cannot install a Virus on your computer then it really is not a computer. If you cant have 100% control over the software you run on your PC then its not really a computer. Because without complete control of the software controlling the hardware there is no way to guarantee that you can get full value out of the hardware you paid for. You see this in routers... were the same hardware model is sold for $60, $100, $300 and $1000. It the same box you paid for, except the software installed on the cheaper models is meant to limit and cripple the functional potential of the hardware.
There is a number of us who do not buy computers for the software it comes with. We instead only consider the hardware, because we know that we already have access to the software that will maximize its potential. Despite this fact, we continue to pay a dying monopoly (microsoft) for added software that we never want and never use. We could care less about how Microsoft tries to protect itself from pirating, because we have nothing to do with this. But now, we see that not only does Microsoft want us to continue paying them for nothing, they want to force us to use their inferior software products. And they want to have control over how we use the hardware we paid for.
Nobody should be in a possition to decide how we use hardware. Not microsoft, not a free software group... nobody. Its just giving one entity too much control. And we know from the past, that this simply leads to stagnent and weak products and with added expense for consumers.
Because Linus knows what we all do, that this will end badly for RedHat. MS will come up with a reason to break booting RedHat later. No one plays with MS and comes out ahead.
I see this as being bad for smaller linux distributions not the few who deside to play with Microsoft. Im sure a commercial vendor like MS would love to see the hundreds of linux varients suddenly be reduced to a handful of large and commercially approved distributions.
I should be able to "roll my own" linux at any time. There is a serious problem with only having a few people with the keys to build linux kernels. Have you noticed what is happening with Ubuntu? They are actively taking keystrokes from your desktop and shipping that information out to various vendors (like amazon). And then they are allowing those vendors to send images and product information directly onto your system that appear while viewing your local application and data. It is a huge privacy concern. Some may like having this information available and not mind the potential security leaks. But no matter what direction any single linux distribution takes, the users should at any time be able to switch to one of the many hundreds of others currently available.
If you think it is OK to ask for permission from Microsoft to sign your kernels or whatever is required... just imagine how long you will wait for MS to deliver when you come up with your own new-and-improved Ubuntu/redhat/linux distribution.
Linux is superior to any other operating system, because of the many thousands and thousands of independent developers around the world. There is no way for any single company to ever catch up to linux development at this point. Even microsoft could not afford to pay all the developers around the world working on linux for the hours spent. It will be a real shame if hardware vendors fold to Microsoft presures in their attempts to limit the further growth of linux.
me to better understand the issue here?
Microsoft is trying to turn the PC industry into a limited device like a tablet or smart phone. Where the hardware is handcuffed by the whims of the software controlling it. Or worse, your device is limited by the service provider you purchased it through.
There are a number of people who do not use microsoft products on their computers at all. Its bad enough that these people are forced to support a dying software monopoly like microsoft every time they want to purchase a new pc... but now they will be forced to run proprietary code at the core of everything else they wish to install on it. As a result, every user of such a PC will need to trust Microsoft to allow them to operate their computer hardware in the way that they desire. And they will need to blindly trust compiled code from a company that appears to have a history of abuse in their dealings with manufactures and competitors. Not to mention the fact that existing Microsoft operating systems are generally poorly designed and coded as evident by having the highest number of bugs, viruses, malware and keyloggers.
From my personal perspective: I would love to stop paying Microsoft over and over again for products that I never want and never use. But now it appears that this useless company (to me) is trying to insert themselves as the underlying and embeded system to decide whether or not I can use my computer hardware in the manner I desire. I just see this as another reason why Microsoft will continue to take money from me for years to come and essentially provide me with nothing. Well... maybe they will provide me with insecurity.
Would have been nice to define APT...
From this content, it is apparent that the original submitter did not know what ATP meant at the time of submission. Because the quoted article doesnt define it either.
i love how this summary explains what an ion is, but assumes i know the definitions of black hole, x-ray, and solar mass. great writing, folks!
I liked the way it is titled "...At Nearly the Speed of Light", but without bothering to mention the measured speed. For those who want real information: "84 percent of its theoretical maximum". Where I assume theoretical maximum is at or near the speed of light.
Your progress bar may have been accurate as far as the total task completion, but not as an estimate of the time remaining to complete it.
It is well known in coputer science that there is no way to determine through programming how long a process will take to complete, or even whether it is guaranteed to complete at all. Combine that with the fact that your program does not get complete control of the CPU and instead shares time with other tasks.
It appears that the Act is trying to prevent installation of programs that 'do things' without the computer users consent. Where 'do things' are things like collecting and transmitting private data from the owners pc. It does not seem to prevent a computer from releasing this data when the user has been specifically informed and agreed to the conditions.
The suggested amendments by the corporate interests suggest that programs should be able to be installed without the computer owners permission or knowledge. And that these programs should be able to monitor the activities of the user and report secretly without the owners knowledge whenever the program suspects that the user is breaking 'any law'. Where 'any law' is: "any law of Canada, of a province or municipality of Canada or of a foreign state".
Logical conclusion:
- these corporations want to install programs that monitor and control your computer usage and secretly collect this information.
- these corporations want to limit the usability of your computer when it conflicts with their interests (profits).
- these corporations want you to abide by arbitrary laws of foreign states!!! Circumventing our own legal process.
A reasonable solution:
- do NOT allow these changes to be implemented into the Act.
- require these corporations to provide all users with consent prior to installing what is effectively corporate backed spyware. After all... with the existing act, the corporations are still allowed to have these programs installed on your computer. The only difference is that as the law stands, you will be informed about it and you will be able to decide whether or not you want to install software that would allow them to monitor and control what you can do with your own computer.
- do not allow foreign states to dictate how we are allowed to operate our own computers within our own borders.
I seriously can't put up there with education. Internet access, while really cool and fun, is still in the category of luxury item. You can get by just fine without it.
I think an Internet connection is more important then access to education. I mean once basic education is provided, more can be learned online then through school and at a faster rate and for far less money. If you havent noticed, a lot of education programs have been moving online and most of it is free. And this is not limited to basic information, but higher and specialized education. The Internet is a great source of education and I believe it now exceeds anything you can receive through traditional sources. The only difference now is the recognized certification you still need to pay for. But this too will change (IMO). As an employer, I would much rather have an employee who knows how to educate themselves online vs a worker who requires a structured institution to gather the same knowledge.
Further, online education does not discriminate against the poor. It does not discriminate based on borders. It does not discriminate on age, sex, etc.
For me: I went through higher education, but a couple of years ago I realized that I did have learned more online then through formal education and work experience combined.
you can always go to the public library to use it there.
Have you been to a library lately? In my city, the library has an increasing space of rows of computers on tables. These computers are almost always full with a signup waiting list. Then there are the rows of empty tables with people sitting using their own laptops. So libraries here are exactly that: free access to wifi/internet. And they just cant seem to keep up with the demand for it. .... and no... not everyone is surfing for porn.
Internet access should be a right. Have you tried to get a job lately without it? Just go into a major grocery chain or department store and try to hand them your resume. They will tell you to submit it online. Taking the Internet away should be similar to removing other rights, like freedom of liberties.
Why would you speak negatively of the idea of providing basic free wifi to the masses? Just because you can afford it is no reason to condemn those who cannot.
My personal rule of thumb is if its a drug that so powerful it can leave the person with lifelong mental illness and brain damage from a single usage? then its probably just too damned risky to allow, unless the populace is willing to pay for the lifelong mental treatment of those that get burnt.
These drugs already exist and are entirely legal. They're called solvents. You can buy them just about everywhere.
Reality is that most people protect themselves when properly educated about the real risks involved in their behaviour. Otherwise, all drug users would probably just be sniffing glue, because its cheap and easy to aquire.
So ur argument that a drug should not be restricted or controlled simply because it is too dangerous is already not in practice.
The article is wrong. It specifically mentions that the accellerometer inside the iphone is inventive, but not a new invention. The combination of inventions is a new patentable invention as recognized by the WIPO (world patents). It may require the licensing of existing patents to combine them into a new one, but this is always the way patents work.
My argument is that we do not see these invensions as invensions because they are not marketed as such. As an example, try to locate the patent behind an accellerometer inside a cell phone. Also, try to find out exactly what chip is being used in the iphone accellerometer or how many axis it has or the degree of angle accuracy, or the speed of these calculations or the code to communicate with it. The average consumer will not be able to find this information, let alone have it marketed to them. Im not saying that it is impossible to find, but rather there is absolutely no marketing it as an invention. Instead, what is marketed is the resulting features. For example, the iphone can be tilted and the displayed page will tilt with it. Thus the consumers see this invention as a benefit improvement. Because customers do not by on technology features alone, they buy on the idea of how they will use it.
Clearly the lightbulb is an invention, and yet Edison did not invent tunksten or the vacuum or electricity in general. And he wasnt alone in his idea that a filament electrified inside a vaccum was the way to proceed. He combined many failed attempts and stumbled apon one that worked. So if combining elements of the past in novel ways to create something new is NOT an invention, then the light bulb is NOT an invention. To suggest that building on the past does not constitute inventions that can change the world, then the author of this article is defying common sense and disagreeing with patent offices around the world.
I think the article is confusing invention with inventor. I do believe that inventions are continuing at a stagering rate. The difference now is that we rarely see it as coming from a single inventor. Often inventions are released on behalf of a corporation or the patents are licensed through a corporation. Inventions are also often incorporated through an existing product line because that is where there is an existing profit model. So new inventions are sometimes hidden from view and not specifically announced to the public as they are marketing benefits, not technology features. For example, just try to find out exactly what technology is inside an iphone and you will be bombarded by marketing on what you can do with it, but minimal information on the working technology that drives it.
Oh, and another quick point. Some forms of music are always condemned to poverty. If it's not popular, people don't listen or buy the music. Comparing "Pop" or "Rock" to Jazz has always showed a wage/income disparity with musicians.
Your opinions about music are irrelevant. The article is quoting the number of plays to the amount returned to the artist.
Also, it is clear that in the past, it has been beneficial for the distribution industry to keep the number of artists to a minimum in order to reduce marketing, production, distribution and legal negotiations. Since most of these costs are now born by the customer directly, it is yet to be seen what style of music the world will demand. Especially considering that most of the world is culturally different from you and has not received the marketing you have received in order to direct your listening preferences.
Do you ever stop to wonder how many people actually like a "pop"ular artist... vs how many people like the artist because someone they like and respect already likes that artist? If not, then please contemplate the "boy band" business model.
I trust Google not to release more information to governments than they have to, but people need to understand that Google must comply with legal requests for information from the governments of countries they have operations in. I don't know if Facebook is any better or worse in this regard.
Google and Facebook get paid money to provide information to the courts and other legal entities. It is in their financial interest to receive and comply to these requests. IMO, they make sure your data remains in a clear text and less secure format then it could otherwise be just to be sure that they can charge the service fees to provide the requested information. For example, why doesnt Gmail have an encryption function for gmail to gmail correspondence?
Facebook on the other hand I do not trust to keep my information to themselves, I'm sure they'd rather get a quick buck now than play the long game like Google does, and they don't seem to care much about their reputation.
Im not suggesting your wrong. However, Ive never seen the page on facebook where a company could request to purchase information about a user. It seems that if Facebook was making money by selling user information to corporations, that it would be pretty easy to supply proof of that, as Facebook would need to market this service to corporations and make it available to be requested. Where is the proof? I have yet to see any report from any company or a whistleblower showing that Facebook is providing this as a paid service. Maybe Im wrong. Maybe facebook is selling private information to the highest bidder. If so, please provide me with the link, I would like to read about it.
So far, all I see is corporations with low moral standards requesting private passwords to collect this information themselves directly from the users.
I dont agree that this is any indication that the government is actively against us. But really... do they need to practice right in faces? Its clearly dangerous behaviour to be flying aircraft so low between buildings and over traffic and pedestrians. This is stupid reckless behaviour. I hope those who organized these events are properly punished for it.
This appears more like the filming of a movie or car commercial. But in those case, you would expect traffic and pedestrians to be kept at bay.