It apparently did it's job. But apparently it was given the wrong job. It is accused (by the manufacturer, of course) that someone entered the wrong amperage that it should do its job at. Unlike home circuit breakers which come in specific amperage levels (and vary from unit to unit by plus or minus 10 percent which is considered acceptable), these relay devices, which are a component in an overcurrent protection system, cannot be made at fixed amperage levels due to economics. They are quite expensive to replace with another just to tweak the settings due to changes made elsewhere in the power distribution network, and the number of different amperage values needed would be very large. They can be expensive also because either they directly connect to current transformers that have high open circuit voltage potential, or operate from digital sensors on the current transformers. They are also expected to have accurate at better than one percent.
They were probably at home. You know the old saying "don't do this at home, boys and girls". Later on they can take the laptop to a restaurant where it is safe to do it.
These steps are actually NOT supposed to brick them. It is thus a proven manufacturing defect. So Samsung is obligated to "repair or replace". An external (JTAG) reflash of the ROM should be able to fix it. Samsung should also fix it by reprogramming the ROM code to perform UEFI correctly.
I suggest 2 different consoles, neither of which would need to be there for the kernel to do it's thing of running user space processes. One would be an optional in-the-kernel console complete with an in-the-kernel shell. Trim down it's capability and keep it small. The other would be an optional all-user-space console which can use the many user-space shells we already have, or any other program we want. PTY's definitely need to be pure user-space.
The only use for a console when the kernel is so hosed it cannot run any user space is to see the kernel's panic message. The console NOW is not useful unless user space is working. The issues I see are just details on how the console functionality gets moved to user space. It needs to support BOTH framebuffer and text mode displays. But definitely, all those things like cooked line input and such should be in user space, and even pluggable with a clean well defined interface that can be used in C as well as higher languages like Python.
OTOH, a completely kernel-only escape and recovery system would be nice, too. We do not have it, yet. That would require a kernel shell (with commands sufficient for emergency recovery only... keep it a small optional module that the kernel does not need for day to day running so it can be left out if not needed).
Google hosting and delivering the large image... bad. Googling showing where the website makes the image available to everyone... good. Webmasters: don't like it? Then don't deliver it. That's what the referrer is for.
Maybe we could have more success with certainty by searching for non-primes. If you got the factors (even one factor is enough), such as 23*89 for 2^11-1, which some people think has to be prime because 11 is prime, then we could have more numbers. Why are primes so great? I can get tons of very large non-prime numbers by generating Pascal's triangle.
They said "terms of use". Use of what? If HE downloaded CCleaner files and included them with his app, then I do see problems galore. But if he did not download CCleaner files himself I do not see how he is obligated contractually to their terms. Contract Law 101.
This will depend on the CCleaner files. If they are public visible files anyone can make for themselves, you might well have a valid case. If they are files Piriform makes, maybe not. You need an ATTORNEY to help you determine your position, and especially if they sue you. If the formatting of the CCleaner files involves a patented technology, they could have a valid basis to sue you (even though I would personally disagree with it). If the CCleaner files are encrypted, they may have a case based on cracking them. If they are in the clear, then it's no different than you having written a music player to play UNencrypted music files.
Selling computer software is perfectly legit. Charging people who refuse to pay for it with theft is perfectly legit, as long as the legal sale and use works. But if they refuse to sell it to you at all (because, for example, they sell it only through an app you cannot run), or make it not work for you (because you run a different OS or computer architecture they won't support), then you should have the right to use a free version in the former case, or a cracked version in the latter case (though arguably you should pay them the price if you can, and just use the cracked version).
I am taking NOTHING from you if I download, from a pirate site or other sharing mechanism, some media you are publishing, IF you have made it so I cannot download it legitimately. Likewise if you have made it so that I cannot use it when downloaded legitimately, I am taking NOTHING from you if I crack it.
I have NOT deprived you of any property by making a COPY. I have NOT deprived you of any revenue if you already made it so I cannot pay you for a working copy.
There are markets. If you do not want to sell a working copy to some particular segments of the market, then you are clearly not expecting any revenue from that segment of the market. If I am in that segment, then do not whine about what I do. If you want my revenue, make sure I can get it legally and that it works for me on MY computer. If you find it cost prohibitive to support some tiny segment of the market, then that is your decision to exclude them and let them figure it out.
I would include abusive DRM in this, and for all media. For example, if the DRM breaks the ability for me to read the book, play the music, view the movie, or run the software, on MY computer, but a pirated version exists, then I have no other choice. And I think this is justified because whoever intentionally added that DRM that blocks me out is already NOT expecting any revenue from ME. That may not justify the pirate making it available to everyone, but it does justify me downloading the pirated version. Publishers making their media or software available so that it worked EVERYWHERE and for EVERYONE at a reasonable price are the only ones that have justification to complain about people downloading a pirated copy. FYI, my computer runs Linux.
From someone who doesn't have a cell phone now and doesn't intend to ever get one, why do you HAVE TO HAVE a cell phone? Exactly what does a cell get you that you cann't live without?
Compliance with family and friends that expect you to have one because "everyone" does. Now maybe YOU don't have the kinds of family and friends that expect that. Most people do these days.
I claim BS on your argument. If I get my email from AT&T, yes, I'd call them if it fails. If I get my email from elsewhere, I'd call that party. I get my email from a combination of 2 servers I administer, Gmail, and GMX. I don't need to data plan on my phone if I'm not using the carrier for that.
Slashdot Mirror
It apparently did it's job. But apparently it was given the wrong job. It is accused (by the manufacturer, of course) that someone entered the wrong amperage that it should do its job at. Unlike home circuit breakers which come in specific amperage levels (and vary from unit to unit by plus or minus 10 percent which is considered acceptable), these relay devices, which are a component in an overcurrent protection system, cannot be made at fixed amperage levels due to economics. They are quite expensive to replace with another just to tweak the settings due to changes made elsewhere in the power distribution network, and the number of different amperage values needed would be very large. They can be expensive also because either they directly connect to current transformers that have high open circuit voltage potential, or operate from digital sensors on the current transformers. They are also expected to have accurate at better than one percent.
They were probably at home. You know the old saying "don't do this at home, boys and girls". Later on they can take the laptop to a restaurant where it is safe to do it.
These steps are actually NOT supposed to brick them. It is thus a proven manufacturing defect. So Samsung is obligated to "repair or replace". An external (JTAG) reflash of the ROM should be able to fix it. Samsung should also fix it by reprogramming the ROM code to perform UEFI correctly.
Where are the 64 bit binaries? But more importantly, where is the source code?
I suggest 2 different consoles, neither of which would need to be there for the kernel to do it's thing of running user space processes. One would be an optional in-the-kernel console complete with an in-the-kernel shell. Trim down it's capability and keep it small. The other would be an optional all-user-space console which can use the many user-space shells we already have, or any other program we want. PTY's definitely need to be pure user-space.
The only use for a console when the kernel is so hosed it cannot run any user space is to see the kernel's panic message. The console NOW is not useful unless user space is working. The issues I see are just details on how the console functionality gets moved to user space. It needs to support BOTH framebuffer and text mode displays. But definitely, all those things like cooked line input and such should be in user space, and even pluggable with a clean well defined interface that can be used in C as well as higher languages like Python.
OTOH, a completely kernel-only escape and recovery system would be nice, too. We do not have it, yet. That would require a kernel shell (with commands sufficient for emergency recovery only ... keep it a small optional module that the kernel does not need for day to day running so it can be left out if not needed).
Hard on the edges, soft in the middle ... the "2000 to 2013" "economic minimum" which actually had several ups and downs, including three biggies.
Google hosting and delivering the large image ... bad. Googling showing where the website makes the image available to everyone ... good. Webmasters: don't like it? Then don't deliver it. That's what the referrer is for.
Maybe we could have more success with certainty by searching for non-primes. If you got the factors (even one factor is enough), such as 23*89 for 2^11-1, which some people think has to be prime because 11 is prime, then we could have more numbers. Why are primes so great? I can get tons of very large non-prime numbers by generating Pascal's triangle.
So Mersenne primes are just low-hanging fruit?
... except when it isn't ... like 2^11-1.
Not all Mersenne numbers are prime. Consider 2^4-1.
... if they didn't limit the search to just Mersenne primes.
They said "terms of use". Use of what? If HE downloaded CCleaner files and included them with his app, then I do see problems galore. But if he did not download CCleaner files himself I do not see how he is obligated contractually to their terms. Contract Law 101.
This will depend on the CCleaner files. If they are public visible files anyone can make for themselves, you might well have a valid case. If they are files Piriform makes, maybe not. You need an ATTORNEY to help you determine your position, and especially if they sue you. If the formatting of the CCleaner files involves a patented technology, they could have a valid basis to sue you (even though I would personally disagree with it). If the CCleaner files are encrypted, they may have a case based on cracking them. If they are in the clear, then it's no different than you having written a music player to play UNencrypted music files.
Selling computer software is perfectly legit. Charging people who refuse to pay for it with theft is perfectly legit, as long as the legal sale and use works. But if they refuse to sell it to you at all (because, for example, they sell it only through an app you cannot run), or make it not work for you (because you run a different OS or computer architecture they won't support), then you should have the right to use a free version in the former case, or a cracked version in the latter case (though arguably you should pay them the price if you can, and just use the cracked version).
And this is why to use Android instead iPhone or others. Apps just wanna be free (as in speech).
So you chose to buy a tethered app?
... except where it doesn't.
Oh, and lets get precise. They did NOT remove a "service". They removed a software offering.
What law does this and web browsers and FTP clients and your computer's TCP/IP stack break?
I am taking NOTHING from you if I download, from a pirate site or other sharing mechanism, some media you are publishing, IF you have made it so I cannot download it legitimately. Likewise if you have made it so that I cannot use it when downloaded legitimately, I am taking NOTHING from you if I crack it.
I have NOT deprived you of any property by making a COPY. I have NOT deprived you of any revenue if you already made it so I cannot pay you for a working copy.
There are markets. If you do not want to sell a working copy to some particular segments of the market, then you are clearly not expecting any revenue from that segment of the market. If I am in that segment, then do not whine about what I do. If you want my revenue, make sure I can get it legally and that it works for me on MY computer. If you find it cost prohibitive to support some tiny segment of the market, then that is your decision to exclude them and let them figure it out.
I would include abusive DRM in this, and for all media. For example, if the DRM breaks the ability for me to read the book, play the music, view the movie, or run the software, on MY computer, but a pirated version exists, then I have no other choice. And I think this is justified because whoever intentionally added that DRM that blocks me out is already NOT expecting any revenue from ME. That may not justify the pirate making it available to everyone, but it does justify me downloading the pirated version. Publishers making their media or software available so that it worked EVERYWHERE and for EVERYONE at a reasonable price are the only ones that have justification to complain about people downloading a pirated copy. FYI, my computer runs Linux.
From someone who doesn't have a cell phone now and doesn't intend to ever get one, why do you HAVE TO HAVE a cell phone? Exactly what does a cell get you that you cann't live without?
Compliance with family and friends that expect you to have one because "everyone" does. Now maybe YOU don't have the kinds of family and friends that expect that. Most people do these days.
I claim BS on your argument. If I get my email from AT&T, yes, I'd call them if it fails. If I get my email from elsewhere, I'd call that party. I get my email from a combination of 2 servers I administer, Gmail, and GMX. I don't need to data plan on my phone if I'm not using the carrier for that.