Boot Camp is a feature of Leopard, and a for-pay add-on for Tiger. If Apple isn't in Enterprise now then selling Boot Camp for their old OS isn't going to hurt their play.
Boot Camp actually prepares a Windows disc for you including drivers for Apple's hardware. It also partitions the disk. It's basically an all-in-two solution for adding Windows to your Mac (it's all-in-two because you still need a Windows CD, which you still need if you repartition manually). I don't know if the Windows drivers are available any other way.
And maybe you should read the article, which says that Boot Camp will likely be sold as an add-on for Tiger and will likely be free for Leopard users. Hell, this was even implied in the summary.
Also, Parallels and Boot Camp target slightly different users. Right now, I would use Boot Camp because it gives full access to the hardware (read: accelerated 3D graphics). I know that Parallels stated that they'd be releasing a version of their virtualizer that provides accelerated 3D, but I'll believe that when I see it. I haven't seen this mentioned on their blog in months.
This is a common argument that you see narrow-minded people make. You see it ALL THE TIME on here and other web communities:
"Well I'm glad we've fixed erectile dysfunction. Now maybe we can work on curing cancer."
"Maybe we should fix the problems in our own country before we start trying to fix the problems in other countries."
"How can we devote tax dollars to X when Y is still going on all over the country?"
Of course, Ohio is important here for a number of reasons. These people admitted to failing to randomly select 3% to count by hand (instead, they hand-picked the 3% to count by hand). This is a symbol for voting fraud and negligence all over the country, and if they get slapped with a large penalty for their actions, it will hopefully lead to better overall voting conditions.
There may be more egregious violations, but they're not as evident or easily prosecuted as this case. Hell, in my hometown, several polls failed to maintain a queue between checking ID and getting your voting machine login number, leading to the possibility of people voting two or more times. A couple of polling places 'accidentally' hit the "end election" button, which requires that the machine be reset by one of the top election officials. This lead to downtime of HOURS in some places while they waited either for new machines or for the election officials to make their way there to reset them. The hope is that people will see what a mess it is, see what the penalties are for so royally screwing up, and work harder to make the elections more legitimate.
It will need to be highly identifying. They will probably maintain credit card information at the very least.
As long as they aren't too intrusive about it, I'm really gung-ho about this solution, and I wish I could get hi-def content this way. Being able to use my content 'fairly' is very important, and this allows me to do so.
Of course, one issue is that you can't really loan your content out. It's still leaps and bounds above DRM that doesn't let you store content in another format.
Lots of people misunderstand the parody aspect of the Fair Use doctrine. For parody to be a Fair Use exemption, the derivative work must be commenting on the original work. For lots of "Weird" Al's songs, this would be difficult to show. Many of his parodies don't really reference the original at all, though they use the music and lyrical structures. Phony Calls comes to mind as one example, and I'm sure there are others.
And as it turns out, Al usually pays royalties on the works he uses, anyway. He always asks permission (even if it is believed that he does not need it) and he does not produce the song if permission is not given (barring miscommunications).
There are also compulsory licenses, which is a whole separate ball of wax. The Wikipedia article on copyright discusses compulsory licenses briefly. Very simply, compulsory licenses allow for creation of a derivative work regardless of the copyright owner's wishes on the subject, though royalties or other license fees might be required. In general (in the US) music can be licensed under these terms, though the use has to be registered.
Getting back on topic, my guess is that if the use of this music had been registered for compulsory license, this wouldn't be the criminal matter it has become. It would be civil, arguing over reasonable fees for the license.
(end disclaimer: I am not a lawyer, nor is my knowledge of copyright absolute. If I got bits and pieces wrong, please let me know)
It goes beyond 'neo-luddites'. We have open standards for a reason--and that reason is so that if I want to create a platform and communicate with the existing infrastructure, I have everything that I need to make an application on that platform that will work with everyone else. The HTML specification is an excellent example of this. People have made HTML rendering engines for almost every device that has an IP address, and for many that don't, as well (my old Palm IIIxe had an offline webpage reader).
When you throw closed standards into the mix, you start make things harder. If my platform of choice doesn't have an HTMl renderer, I can write one. If my platform of choice doesn't have a Flash player, I can't. I either do without Flash, or I switch platforms.
Of course, some people can't switch platforms. My Windows Mobile 5.0 phone doesn't work with Flash--at least, the default browser doesn't. If I use NetFront, I can get Flash 7. Will this banking website work with that, or will Flash 9 be required?
My only problem with this is that the standard isn't open. If it's an open standard, even one for which my platform of choice has no current support, I'm ok with it. If it's a closed standard, the answer is 'no'.
Anything which the public is allowed to have (I.E. it's not classified as top secret or as a something which is illegal for civilians to possess) should be publicly available. For anything else, it's largely irrelevant.
The problem here is that tax dollars are being funnelled into companies so that they can research. They then turn around and get patents on the work so that they can exclusively provide that product or service.
I might be ok with one or two years of exclusivity, depending upon the product/technology. It's highly likely that the company would get this anyway, given their jump-start on the tech. But getting a full patent's term is absurd. My tax dollars should not be spent making a corporation billions of dollars.
There have been stories before which made this claim. Digging deeper, it seems that some instructions take longer using VT, and some are shorter. In essence, one could see an improvement if all of the instructions were profiled and the longer ones emulated while the shorter ones are executed using VT. The problem is that many early implementations of VT run almost all of the instructions that way, therefore the benefits roughly cancel out the performance gains.
Expect performance to improve in later versions of the software.
How (1. in what way or manner; by what means) far (at or to a great, advanced, or definite point of progress, or degree) does (a 3rd pers. sing. pres. indic. of do (to put forth; exert)) that (used to indicate a person, thing, idea, state, event, time, remark, etc., as pointed out or present, mentioned before, supposed to be understood, or by way of emphasis) go (to move or proceed, esp. to or from something)?
Seriously, this is a site primarily dealing with technology, and given that some of the context clues have had stories of their on on here (Xen, for example) and the link to the story itself contains information on the first page of the forum post (which any reasonable person should read before posting--yes yes, I know that isn't common on Slashdot), I don't think that the summary was unreasonable.
The common interpretation of the BSD license is just that--common. Of course, because legal mumbo-jumbo increases at a constant rate, it has failed to adapt. In other words, the original authors of the license probably never anticipated this amount of scrutiny.
In truth, they're largely right. The clause explicitly says that source-distributions must effectively contain a reproduction of the entire license. It does it by separating the license into three parts, then demanding that each part be included. It's rather inelegant, and is akin to typing:
Except for the original authors explaining their intent, I can't figure out how anyone would ever come to the conclusion that the 'misconceived' interpretation is correct.
This is like a software case of the spilling coffee on your lap because you were stupid enough to squeeze hot coffee between your thighs in a moving vehicle.
Just for the record, the vehicle wasn't moving (at least, not in the most common case people cite).
Other people have no care about their car's engine and how it works. This does not mean they do not need to travel.
Yeah, I'm one of these people. The difference is that I pay to have my car fixed, so I don't do things like revving up the engine until something blows up. When the mechanic tells me that something I've done caused the damage to my car, I stop doing that thing.
Remeber though is a workstation is infected 99% of the time it is IT's fault. Work machines need to be locked down unless a user demonstrates the clue not to do this.
That depends upon where you work and what policies are instituted there. Having worked "IT" for multiple places, I understand that. In higher-educational environments (colleges) technical support is usually offered for free. In some working environments, users have a legitimate need to install software on their computers on a daily basis. How would you handle these situations? Having to go install these programs or make 'administrative' changes to these machines on a daily basis would almost be as awful as having to fix the users problems.
Not all working environments are completely homogenous. There are probably more than you think in which there are almost as many necessary computer configurations as there are users, with the needs changing almost daily.
And anyway, you missed the biggest part of my point, and my biggest complaint. If I tell you that putting tab B into slot A is almost universally a dangerous thing to do (regardless of the field we're in) and you continuously put tab B into slot A, you are deserving of ridicule. You've been told over and over that it's dangerous, yet you continue to do it. That is the most frustrating part.
Your light-switch example hits the nail on the head, but probably not in the way you intended. If you flip the light switch one way and it doesn't work...try flipping it the other way. The building isn't going to blow up.
As long as a computer user follows a few safety guidelines (regarding opening attachments, browsing safety, and not deleting files you don't know are safe to be deleted) you can usually play around with the computer and figure things out. That's how you learn. Try something, and if it didn't work, try something else. While a basic level of training is required to know how to try different things (basic user-interface design, such as what that X in the corner does, and the difference between left- and right-click) after that, try a few different things, and if nothing works, call IT.
Maybe the problem is that users are never told about that, or that they were asleep during that day school. Nevertheless, it's one of the most basic ways that we learn--try it and see what happens. Maybe if IT layed out the basic safety rules and then said, "Please play with the computers to see how they react when you do various things," then seemingly basic tasks wouldn't be so hard for users after awhile.
Absolutely. I don't get upset when someone makes their first, second, usually even third identical mistake. Like opening attachments from untrusted sources and getting their computer infected. But after you've told them over and over that this behavior is causing problems and they continue to do it, that's when it becomes a problem. That is when it has crossed the line from ignorance to stupidity (or gullibility, stupidity's cousin).
I get it. Computers are new and frightening. People get almost a mental block when trying to use them because they're so different. If anything, I would think that would mean they would be more careful, not more careless.
User education doesn't always work. What is needed is for there to be pain associated with repeated instances of the same mistake. Give them three freebies, then start docking their pay every time their workstation is infected. Give them some real incentive to avoid the infection, since right now, they know that the already overworked IT guy will just come fix it if they screw up.
I think that this is pretty typical for most IT people. While some certainly do feel superior and believe that everyone should just know how to operate the computer, for most, it's not the ignorance, it's the stupidity.
I thought he was saying that one should choose a language based upon how much they want to language to coddle. If a language doesn't have the security features you want and you aren't willing to implement them youself, don't use the language.
Unfortunately, this fails when people aren't thinking about security in the first place (most PHP users fall into this category). It's hard to make an informed choice when you don't realize that you need to.
What this basically means is that if you could prove it was fake before the RIAA could subpoena your hard drive to gather evidence, you could possibly get the case dismissed. That said, it's going to be extreemly difficult to prove that they've authorized these fake downloads, and if they have, there's still going to be the weird question of "Did this person violate copyright?"
You see, a good lawyer could argue that the fake file (which is composed of real bytes) is a copyrighted work. At this point, we get into extremely murky legal waters. Do I have to have authorization to download something if the owner of the copyrighted work is providing it, even if they aren't providing me an explicit license, and even if I'm not aware that the person is the copyright owner? If the copyright owner provides the material using a system which means that I'm very likely going to be redistributing it as part of receiving it (BitTorrent) can I really be accused of infringement for the redistribution? These questions will likely only be answerable by a well-informed high court.
Can you elaborate on the FROM signing? What mail clients might support this (I use mutt, so I assume I can wedge this functionality in). Are individual mails signed differently?
Do you have a package that does this, specifically?
It sounds like an interesting solution to one of the most frustrating spam problems I have.
I switched from Cingular to Sprint. The reason I started looking around for a new carrier is, simply put, because my call connections always sucked. Cingular claims to have the fewest dropped calls--that may be true, because rarely were my calls actually disconnected. However, I frequently couldn't hear the other person--they'd cut out constantly--and it happened whether or not they were on a land-line.
I tried multiple phones and got the same results. Cingular is really big in my area, so there should be no excuse for this. The only thing I can think of is that, given that I live in a college town, Cingular oversubscribed this area when school's in.
With Sprint, I get clear connections almost every time. EVDO is a nice bonus--it's faster than EDGE, and Cingular's 3G isn't going to be available in this area for some time, anyway.
That said, of late, I've started using my phone less and less and the Internet features on it more and more (including SMS for most short conversations). To that end, it may be worth switching back to get an iPhone, if the interface lives up to its hype.
I have the Sprint version of this phone. I've also noticed battery issues, but it's almost always when I have lots of programs in the background or when I have today-screen plugins. I've hard-reset this thing multiple times, and after the reset (and not installing anything) it will easily last 3 days on standby with minimal call usage and no internet usage (basically, at the end of the third day, it will be at around 20%). Unfortunately, this drops the utility of the device drastically.
People you hang around with want it. The vast majority simply don't care one way or the other. They may think it would be nice to make a dub like you used to be able to do with VHS (though Macrovision was fairly effective in stopping this, for most people) but these are cases where the law is a lot less fuzzy--even if it's not for commercial gain, copying an entire work is rarely considered fair use.
I could bitch all day about how Microsoft doesn't "give me what I want" (which is a free OS). That doesn't mean that selling Vista is a mistake.
Most people don't care about copy protection that isn't intrusive. DVD copy protection is not intrusive to 99% of the market. HD-DVD/Bluray copy protection may be intrusive to more people (the cross section of people who can't watch it in full HD and people who will even notice[1]), but ultimately, it's still probably not going to be enough to matter. From a business perspective, it is simply not a mistake. Removing the copy protection would not generate them significantly more revenue.
(Now all of you who say, "I'd buy it if it had no copy protection!" can chime in as if you matter--hell, I'd buy either standard if they had no copy protection--but that demographic is not nearly as high as you think it is, and frankly, once the devices drop down to the $50 range like DVD did, you'll see a lot of people who originally took the moral high-ground buying them because they're cheap enough that it barely hurts your wallet.)
They can use legislation and bully tactics to reduce filesharing networks. They can't do much to stop casual copying, except through these technological measures. They're fighting against both forms of copyright infringement doing this.
I'd say that fair use gets killed in the crossfire, but when you get right down to it, they don't care about your fair use rights and probably wish that such exemptions to copyright didn't exist, anyway.
Look at it this way: the NSA is helping to prevent zombies from spamming us all to hell. Even if you're not a Windows user, you have to live with 90% of the people on the Internets being Windows users.
Except the WTC was probably chose due to its financial importance. Other big targets would be various stock exchanges, banks/forts holdings lots of money/gold, etc.
While the human factor is certainly important for the fear aspect, killing 2,000 people every decade isn't going to do any real damage. I guess it's possible that the government has thwarted attacks that would otherwise have caused more deaths, but so far, we have no evidence that this is the case.
Slashdot Mirror
Boot Camp is a feature of Leopard, and a for-pay add-on for Tiger. If Apple isn't in Enterprise now then selling Boot Camp for their old OS isn't going to hurt their play.
Boot Camp actually prepares a Windows disc for you including drivers for Apple's hardware. It also partitions the disk. It's basically an all-in-two solution for adding Windows to your Mac (it's all-in-two because you still need a Windows CD, which you still need if you repartition manually). I don't know if the Windows drivers are available any other way.
And maybe you should read the article, which says that Boot Camp will likely be sold as an add-on for Tiger and will likely be free for Leopard users. Hell, this was even implied in the summary.
Also, Parallels and Boot Camp target slightly different users. Right now, I would use Boot Camp because it gives full access to the hardware (read: accelerated 3D graphics). I know that Parallels stated that they'd be releasing a version of their virtualizer that provides accelerated 3D, but I'll believe that when I see it. I haven't seen this mentioned on their blog in months.
This is a common argument that you see narrow-minded people make. You see it ALL THE TIME on here and other web communities:
"Well I'm glad we've fixed erectile dysfunction. Now maybe we can work on curing cancer."
"Maybe we should fix the problems in our own country before we start trying to fix the problems in other countries."
"How can we devote tax dollars to X when Y is still going on all over the country?"
Of course, Ohio is important here for a number of reasons. These people admitted to failing to randomly select 3% to count by hand (instead, they hand-picked the 3% to count by hand). This is a symbol for voting fraud and negligence all over the country, and if they get slapped with a large penalty for their actions, it will hopefully lead to better overall voting conditions.
There may be more egregious violations, but they're not as evident or easily prosecuted as this case. Hell, in my hometown, several polls failed to maintain a queue between checking ID and getting your voting machine login number, leading to the possibility of people voting two or more times. A couple of polling places 'accidentally' hit the "end election" button, which requires that the machine be reset by one of the top election officials. This lead to downtime of HOURS in some places while they waited either for new machines or for the election officials to make their way there to reset them. The hope is that people will see what a mess it is, see what the penalties are for so royally screwing up, and work harder to make the elections more legitimate.
It will need to be highly identifying. They will probably maintain credit card information at the very least.
As long as they aren't too intrusive about it, I'm really gung-ho about this solution, and I wish I could get hi-def content this way. Being able to use my content 'fairly' is very important, and this allows me to do so.
Of course, one issue is that you can't really loan your content out. It's still leaps and bounds above DRM that doesn't let you store content in another format.
Lots of people misunderstand the parody aspect of the Fair Use doctrine. For parody to be a Fair Use exemption, the derivative work must be commenting on the original work. For lots of "Weird" Al's songs, this would be difficult to show. Many of his parodies don't really reference the original at all, though they use the music and lyrical structures. Phony Calls comes to mind as one example, and I'm sure there are others.
And as it turns out, Al usually pays royalties on the works he uses, anyway. He always asks permission (even if it is believed that he does not need it) and he does not produce the song if permission is not given (barring miscommunications).
There are also compulsory licenses, which is a whole separate ball of wax. The Wikipedia article on copyright discusses compulsory licenses briefly. Very simply, compulsory licenses allow for creation of a derivative work regardless of the copyright owner's wishes on the subject, though royalties or other license fees might be required. In general (in the US) music can be licensed under these terms, though the use has to be registered.
Getting back on topic, my guess is that if the use of this music had been registered for compulsory license, this wouldn't be the criminal matter it has become. It would be civil, arguing over reasonable fees for the license.
(end disclaimer: I am not a lawyer, nor is my knowledge of copyright absolute. If I got bits and pieces wrong, please let me know)
It goes beyond 'neo-luddites'. We have open standards for a reason--and that reason is so that if I want to create a platform and communicate with the existing infrastructure, I have everything that I need to make an application on that platform that will work with everyone else. The HTML specification is an excellent example of this. People have made HTML rendering engines for almost every device that has an IP address, and for many that don't, as well (my old Palm IIIxe had an offline webpage reader).
When you throw closed standards into the mix, you start make things harder. If my platform of choice doesn't have an HTMl renderer, I can write one. If my platform of choice doesn't have a Flash player, I can't. I either do without Flash, or I switch platforms.
Of course, some people can't switch platforms. My Windows Mobile 5.0 phone doesn't work with Flash--at least, the default browser doesn't. If I use NetFront, I can get Flash 7. Will this banking website work with that, or will Flash 9 be required?
My only problem with this is that the standard isn't open. If it's an open standard, even one for which my platform of choice has no current support, I'm ok with it. If it's a closed standard, the answer is 'no'.
It's not really all that complicated.
Anything which the public is allowed to have (I.E. it's not classified as top secret or as a something which is illegal for civilians to possess) should be publicly available. For anything else, it's largely irrelevant.
The problem here is that tax dollars are being funnelled into companies so that they can research. They then turn around and get patents on the work so that they can exclusively provide that product or service.
I might be ok with one or two years of exclusivity, depending upon the product/technology. It's highly likely that the company would get this anyway, given their jump-start on the tech. But getting a full patent's term is absurd. My tax dollars should not be spent making a corporation billions of dollars.
There have been stories before which made this claim. Digging deeper, it seems that some instructions take longer using VT, and some are shorter. In essence, one could see an improvement if all of the instructions were profiled and the longer ones emulated while the shorter ones are executed using VT. The problem is that many early implementations of VT run almost all of the instructions that way, therefore the benefits roughly cancel out the performance gains.
Expect performance to improve in later versions of the software.
How (1. in what way or manner; by what means) far (at or to a great, advanced, or definite point of progress, or degree) does (a 3rd pers. sing. pres. indic. of do (to put forth; exert)) that (used to indicate a person, thing, idea, state, event, time, remark, etc., as pointed out or present, mentioned before, supposed to be understood, or by way of emphasis) go (to move or proceed, esp. to or from something)?
Seriously, this is a site primarily dealing with technology, and given that some of the context clues have had stories of their on on here (Xen, for example) and the link to the story itself contains information on the first page of the forum post (which any reasonable person should read before posting--yes yes, I know that isn't common on Slashdot), I don't think that the summary was unreasonable.
The common interpretation of the BSD license is just that--common. Of course, because legal mumbo-jumbo increases at a constant rate, it has failed to adapt. In other words, the original authors of the license probably never anticipated this amount of scrutiny.
.
In truth, they're largely right. The clause explicitly says that source-distributions must effectively contain a reproduction of the entire license. It does it by separating the license into three parts, then demanding that each part be included. It's rather inelegant, and is akin to typing:
newLicense = concat(oldLicense[0],oldLicense[1],oldLicense[2])
Except for the original authors explaining their intent, I can't figure out how anyone would ever come to the conclusion that the 'misconceived' interpretation is correct.
This is like a software case of the spilling coffee on your lap because you were stupid enough to squeeze hot coffee between your thighs in a moving vehicle.
Just for the record, the vehicle wasn't moving (at least, not in the most common case people cite).
Other people have no care about their car's engine and how it works. This does not mean they do not need to travel.
Yeah, I'm one of these people. The difference is that I pay to have my car fixed, so I don't do things like revving up the engine until something blows up. When the mechanic tells me that something I've done caused the damage to my car, I stop doing that thing.
Remeber though is a workstation is infected 99% of the time it is IT's fault. Work machines need to be locked down unless a user demonstrates the clue not to do this.
That depends upon where you work and what policies are instituted there. Having worked "IT" for multiple places, I understand that. In higher-educational environments (colleges) technical support is usually offered for free. In some working environments, users have a legitimate need to install software on their computers on a daily basis. How would you handle these situations? Having to go install these programs or make 'administrative' changes to these machines on a daily basis would almost be as awful as having to fix the users problems.
Not all working environments are completely homogenous. There are probably more than you think in which there are almost as many necessary computer configurations as there are users, with the needs changing almost daily.
And anyway, you missed the biggest part of my point, and my biggest complaint. If I tell you that putting tab B into slot A is almost universally a dangerous thing to do (regardless of the field we're in) and you continuously put tab B into slot A, you are deserving of ridicule. You've been told over and over that it's dangerous, yet you continue to do it. That is the most frustrating part.
Your light-switch example hits the nail on the head, but probably not in the way you intended. If you flip the light switch one way and it doesn't work...try flipping it the other way. The building isn't going to blow up.
As long as a computer user follows a few safety guidelines (regarding opening attachments, browsing safety, and not deleting files you don't know are safe to be deleted) you can usually play around with the computer and figure things out. That's how you learn. Try something, and if it didn't work, try something else. While a basic level of training is required to know how to try different things (basic user-interface design, such as what that X in the corner does, and the difference between left- and right-click) after that, try a few different things, and if nothing works, call IT.
Maybe the problem is that users are never told about that, or that they were asleep during that day school. Nevertheless, it's one of the most basic ways that we learn--try it and see what happens. Maybe if IT layed out the basic safety rules and then said, "Please play with the computers to see how they react when you do various things," then seemingly basic tasks wouldn't be so hard for users after awhile.
Absolutely. I don't get upset when someone makes their first, second, usually even third identical mistake. Like opening attachments from untrusted sources and getting their computer infected. But after you've told them over and over that this behavior is causing problems and they continue to do it, that's when it becomes a problem. That is when it has crossed the line from ignorance to stupidity (or gullibility, stupidity's cousin).
I get it. Computers are new and frightening. People get almost a mental block when trying to use them because they're so different. If anything, I would think that would mean they would be more careful, not more careless.
User education doesn't always work. What is needed is for there to be pain associated with repeated instances of the same mistake. Give them three freebies, then start docking their pay every time their workstation is infected. Give them some real incentive to avoid the infection, since right now, they know that the already overworked IT guy will just come fix it if they screw up.
I think that this is pretty typical for most IT people. While some certainly do feel superior and believe that everyone should just know how to operate the computer, for most, it's not the ignorance, it's the stupidity.
I thought he was saying that one should choose a language based upon how much they want to language to coddle. If a language doesn't have the security features you want and you aren't willing to implement them youself, don't use the language.
Unfortunately, this fails when people aren't thinking about security in the first place (most PHP users fall into this category). It's hard to make an informed choice when you don't realize that you need to.
What this basically means is that if you could prove it was fake before the RIAA could subpoena your hard drive to gather evidence, you could possibly get the case dismissed. That said, it's going to be extreemly difficult to prove that they've authorized these fake downloads, and if they have, there's still going to be the weird question of "Did this person violate copyright?"
You see, a good lawyer could argue that the fake file (which is composed of real bytes) is a copyrighted work. At this point, we get into extremely murky legal waters. Do I have to have authorization to download something if the owner of the copyrighted work is providing it, even if they aren't providing me an explicit license, and even if I'm not aware that the person is the copyright owner? If the copyright owner provides the material using a system which means that I'm very likely going to be redistributing it as part of receiving it (BitTorrent) can I really be accused of infringement for the redistribution? These questions will likely only be answerable by a well-informed high court.
Of course not, or did you think that your DVD player has 9gigabytes of RAM?
Can you elaborate on the FROM signing? What mail clients might support this (I use mutt, so I assume I can wedge this functionality in). Are individual mails signed differently?
Do you have a package that does this, specifically?
It sounds like an interesting solution to one of the most frustrating spam problems I have.
I switched from Cingular to Sprint. The reason I started looking around for a new carrier is, simply put, because my call connections always sucked. Cingular claims to have the fewest dropped calls--that may be true, because rarely were my calls actually disconnected. However, I frequently couldn't hear the other person--they'd cut out constantly--and it happened whether or not they were on a land-line.
I tried multiple phones and got the same results. Cingular is really big in my area, so there should be no excuse for this. The only thing I can think of is that, given that I live in a college town, Cingular oversubscribed this area when school's in.
With Sprint, I get clear connections almost every time. EVDO is a nice bonus--it's faster than EDGE, and Cingular's 3G isn't going to be available in this area for some time, anyway.
That said, of late, I've started using my phone less and less and the Internet features on it more and more (including SMS for most short conversations). To that end, it may be worth switching back to get an iPhone, if the interface lives up to its hype.
I have the Sprint version of this phone. I've also noticed battery issues, but it's almost always when I have lots of programs in the background or when I have today-screen plugins. I've hard-reset this thing multiple times, and after the reset (and not installing anything) it will easily last 3 days on standby with minimal call usage and no internet usage (basically, at the end of the third day, it will be at around 20%). Unfortunately, this drops the utility of the device drastically.
People you hang around with want it. The vast majority simply don't care one way or the other. They may think it would be nice to make a dub like you used to be able to do with VHS (though Macrovision was fairly effective in stopping this, for most people) but these are cases where the law is a lot less fuzzy--even if it's not for commercial gain, copying an entire work is rarely considered fair use.
I could bitch all day about how Microsoft doesn't "give me what I want" (which is a free OS). That doesn't mean that selling Vista is a mistake.
Most people don't care about copy protection that isn't intrusive. DVD copy protection is not intrusive to 99% of the market. HD-DVD/Bluray copy protection may be intrusive to more people (the cross section of people who can't watch it in full HD and people who will even notice[1]), but ultimately, it's still probably not going to be enough to matter. From a business perspective, it is simply not a mistake. Removing the copy protection would not generate them significantly more revenue.
(Now all of you who say, "I'd buy it if it had no copy protection!" can chime in as if you matter--hell, I'd buy either standard if they had no copy protection--but that demographic is not nearly as high as you think it is, and frankly, once the devices drop down to the $50 range like DVD did, you'll see a lot of people who originally took the moral high-ground buying them because they're cheap enough that it barely hurts your wallet.)
It's not a mistake.
They can use legislation and bully tactics to reduce filesharing networks. They can't do much to stop casual copying, except through these technological measures. They're fighting against both forms of copyright infringement doing this.
I'd say that fair use gets killed in the crossfire, but when you get right down to it, they don't care about your fair use rights and probably wish that such exemptions to copyright didn't exist, anyway.
Look at it this way: the NSA is helping to prevent zombies from spamming us all to hell. Even if you're not a Windows user, you have to live with 90% of the people on the Internets being Windows users.
Except the WTC was probably chose due to its financial importance. Other big targets would be various stock exchanges, banks/forts holdings lots of money/gold, etc.
While the human factor is certainly important for the fear aspect, killing 2,000 people every decade isn't going to do any real damage. I guess it's possible that the government has thwarted attacks that would otherwise have caused more deaths, but so far, we have no evidence that this is the case.