Plenty more examples. If actually revoking domains means powerless to revoke domains, then their powerless state is mighty powerful!
I have personally even gotten them to revoke a domain from someone else, who had the.com form of what I had.net, org, and.ca in use for. The.com was a clear auction page for the domain starting at a few thousand dollars, and an email to ICANN pointing it out and two weeks time got it unregistered. A day later it was registered in my name, and after a week (To avoid wasting my time in case the squatter wanted to contest) it was live with the other domains on the web server.
Granted I don't think I could hold my breath for two weeks plus:P but that's still a far cry better from not doing anything for me as you imply.
the problem I see with this though is it's not like the domain was stolen... Now clearly they're being fraudulent WITH the domain, but they obtained it legally, so that makes it a lot harder to legally take away.
You should read the ICANN domain agreement you clicked OK to when registering a domain (All registrars for.com are required to pass that agreement on)
Registering a domain name in bad faith, and/or for the use of fraud, is grounds for domain revocation.
Being legally purchased, and not being stolen, do not factor into ICANNs rules. Those are more legal issues a court would need to address, and only after that happens would it be ICANNs concern.
ICANN can revoke any.com domain on the grounds it is registered in bad faith or used for fraud. They HAVE done this in the past too.
If you register a domain that sounds similar to an existing business, and also use that website for business, odds are good they can have it revoked from you. If your business line is the same as the existing business, it is guaranteed to be revoked. Being local rules, that the end user agreed to, there is little recourse when ICANN chose to do so, even if they do abuse this vague rule.
This Paragraph sets forth the type of disputes for which you are required to submit to a mandatory administrative proceeding. These proceedings will be conducted before one of the administrative-dispute-resolution service providers listed at www.icann.org/udrp/approved-providers.htm (each, a "Provider").
a. Applicable Disputes. You are required to submit to a mandatory administrative proceeding in the event that a third party (a "complainant") asserts to the applicable Provider, in compliance with the Rules of Procedure, that
(i) your domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the complainant has rights; and
(ii) you have no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name; and
(iii) your domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.
For these laughable "protections", I'd be far better off keeping my money under my mattress. It seems to me it should be 100% of the job of the bank to keep my money safe and secure.
To be fair, for those of us that just keep money at a bank, they DO keep it pretty safe and secure. (Barring the bank going out of business in a tragic way or something of course)
The problem is, as you hinted at in your first post, that by asking for a debit card (Or by not refusing one) you are basically instructing the bank that anyone using this set of 25 digits* has the ability to take money from the account.
*(30 digits if zip is required, but I didn't think that one was enforced by the bank, just CC# CSV2 and exp date.)
As you mentioned, they fully have the ability to use a more secure process and ditch the current system, but they clearly haven't, nor will for the very reasons you gave. So since that current method to access my money is not secure, it is not an option to me.
People blindly accepting this poor insecure option when they don't need to is also a problem. Of course the banks not even trying to fix things is also a problem. It's just that fixing only one of those two will keep your money safe and secure at the bank, and since only one option is even under your control, it's the only one we can use. (However we can bitch about both still heh)
I fully agree with your stance, and I too do not have a debit card on my main checking or savings accounts. I have one on a spare empty savings account with no overdraft coverage (if it does not have the funds to cover it, it rejects the charges. You have to specially ask for that one these days) that I can transfer money into for the rare time I need such a use.
Although instead of under a mattress, I would have to highly recommend a small fire/water proof safe that fits _under_ the bed and mattress;}
What is their agenda? (other than to promote lung health, which no reasonable person could criticize)
I can criticize it just fine.
They are MY lungs. Get your own damn pair!
By your logic, it would be just fine for me to pass laws that you are never again allowed to step out of your house, and you already said you are perfectly OK with that and no one could possibly criticize skin health.
I guess the fines are to promote wallet health in addition to deter?
What exactly do you expect patching an already rooted system to accomplish? Those patches won't make it any more secure than it was before the patch. Those patches won't fix any of the security problems they fix on a rooted system.
What would the point be?
Best possible case is nothing at all happens and you are just as rooted and insecure as before applying the patches.
Worse possible case is your system now refuses to boot, or reboots in loops, etc.
So you're saying it sucks as a browser, and it's unfair to review it as a browser, because it's not intended to be a good browser? What? Exactly on what basis should it be reviewed?
It's a browser. If I'm reading a review of a browser, then I expect to read a review about how good it is as a browser. If it sucks, then it sucks.
In your case, you can just assume it will definitely suck in all but possibly one way. Compared to any other full browser (or just 'browser' as you call them) it will suck.
That one possible way is if you have an older phone that only has opera mini and can't use any other browsers (Original Razr, I'm looking at you! It's built in browser is less functional than lynx) In that case, a non-full browser might be better than nothing at all.
Technically speaking, opera mini is NOT a web browser at all. It is a stream viewer application that can display a specific markup language served by opera mini's servers. The web browser part of the process was between the web server/site you go to, and operas servers. It ends there, translates the webpage into another form, and streams that to your viewer application (Named opera mini)
Looked at that way, it becomes obvious you can't compare it to another totally different class of software known as the web browser, since it literally does not do much of anything a web browser app would do. (Yes, it stores bookmarks and manages pages/tabs, but still has no html/webpage rendering engine in it)
We can only assume how good of a rendering engine opera used on their servers. I thought it was mentioned they used webkit, but that could easily be wrong. The main point is that the webpage never makes it to your opera mini client in the first place, so comparing it to a program that DOES render html is silly.
The closest comparison I can think of is comparing remote desktop with a video player, and claiming remote desktop IS a video player simply because you can see a video window opening, but that remote desktop is a really crappy video player application because it doesn't decode video properly, and finally claiming remote desktop is clearly a video player app and must be compared to other video player applications.
Translating your statement: So you're saying remote desktop sucks as a video player, and it's unfair to review it as a video player, because it's not intended to be a good video player? What? Exactly on what basis should it be reviewed?
Remote desktop is a video player. If I'm reading a review of remote desktop clients, then I expect to read a review about how good it is as a video player. If it sucks, then it sucks.
As an aside, I don't get a big rush when I find a problem in someone else's code. Maybe I'm just old and jaded now, but I'm just trying to get everything to work well, finding that someone else didn't do their job doesn't usually make my situation any better (as you indicate here), so I don't relish it.
Additionally this guy has the added burden of relying on this company for what sounds like a major part of their IT infrastructure.
If the software is extremely specialized then it is possible there might only be a couple hundred customers. An anonymous leak soon (Say within 5 years) if this guy mentioning that he found it would be a simple conclusion to jump to to place blame for an anonymous leak.
Remember, a company is not a court, so evidence and logic are not a requirement in producing an outcome.
I would probably hand the info over to a big whitehat group (anonymously if need be, thou an explanation of the situation will probably get the same response) and have THEM claim discovery and report it to the vendor using responsible disclosure.
This way the group can say "You have ___ weeks to release a fix if you like, but on ____ date we will release this exploit to the public."
It helps in the emotional/illogical areas too, as someone at the vendor whom did correctly suspect the customer, will have a much harder time convincing others of that when such a large face is actively and directly taking the blame. Additionally the vendors other customers will have no reason to have negative thoughts against this one, if there is an active community in any shape around this software.
Where I work, we have a similar situation with the software package that runs our enterprise. There is still a couple yahoo message groups where customers can post and talk with each other for ways of solving problems. The vendors staff even monitor the group, and official bug fixes have resulted simply from a single IT guy posting a complaint.
It is a wise idea to remain in good standing with such a community, whom might not realize their soon to be public knowledge security problems are the fault of the vendor for not fixing them, and not this customer for being the messenger of bad news.
Long version, it's only no while you limit the scope to 'will they _remove_ apps' since no existing apps are coded with the new 4.0 APIs, and you will see this rule only matters for new apps using the new 4.0 api and being newly submitted to the store.
Once they are ready to release an update to their emulator software, it might matter.
If the updates are all to the emulator core to speed things up, and they don't touch the GUI code, it will be accepted just as before.
But if they change their code to use the new multitasking commands, then they will probably get rejected if they use 3rd party tools. Then again, they might very well have used apples tools, in which case doing all of that will be fine.
Since when is an annoyingly-high volume email campaign illegal?
In America? Since before the constitution was ratified, back in the 1800's.
In fact both the 5th and 14th amendments further limit ex parte laws from what Britain used at the time. Clearly those laws were in place before those amendments were written.
It was 1868 for the 14th, you can look up the rest yourself, but guaranteed it has been illegal since at least 1868.
That's ridiculous. How many people who stick modchips in their PS2s, etc are doing it because they want to do homebrew stuff?
I won't answer that question as it isn't related to any topic at hand (article, summary, or parent)
However to make it relevant:
How many people MADE A MODCHIP FROM SCRATCH to stick in their PS2s's because they are doing it to play homebrew stuff?
Zero.
How many PIRATES made a modchip from scratch to put in their PS2?
Zero. (Arguably One)
Also compare that to the fact that only about 10 people/companies made such chips, and your argument falls down. 10 is not many.
With the prior PS3 firmware, there were zero modchips because the people who CAN make them didn't need to. SO there are zero pirates using them (as they don't exist to use)
Now that sony removed that feature, the PS3 will fall under the same category as all the other consoles your statement would be closer to the truth about.
It is archaic definition bricked or "inconvenient to repair" bricked, as is the new usage.
I think in this situation that is still a fair and correct assertion.
The true definition of bricked is totally unrecoverable. The pop/current definition in media seems to be 'broken but fixable if one has the knowledge how to do so'
In this case, a video game console in the hands of a normal consumer, I would say 'bricked' is correct if the system becomes non-functional and you can't simply perform the same steps to re-flash it.
In our hands, that is not bricked but just broken. We know the secret button holding processes to get to that lower boot loader, or where the JTAG pins are on the main board to solder to and reprogram the flash chips directly, etc etc.
But a normal consumer will most likely not have the knowledge that is even possible. Even if they do, they wouldn't be a normal consumer if they had the hardware and skills required.
To them, the only solution is to return it to Sony, or toss it in the trash. That is bricked, even by our definition.
Doing a straight copy of a DVD doesn't require cracking CSS, you just copy the contents of the disc
Actually it depends on the extent CSS was used. CSS actually supports quite a few different types of keys.
Some of those keys are in the DVD players CSS-decrypter chip. Others are in a special place at the start of a DVD. If the latter type of key is used, you will not be able to play a DVD-R with a CSS video on a standard DVD player, because you have just erased the disc keys by not copying them too.
On DVD+-R's that special area is either blank (just plastic there) or are pressed (So not writable) and pre-written with all zeros. Either way, you can not write a new key in that spot, and the key already there will never match anything.
Placed in a standard DVD player, the player will see the CSS headers, authenticate the auth keys against its built in ones, see that the disc key is needed, read it from the special track, and assuming reading in zeros, attempt to decrypt the video using that key. It will fail.
Thus, if you read the original DVD video and key, deCSS the video so no encryption key is needed, THEN burn to DVD-R, it will play.
Now granted, this is for video only, and only CSS encrypted video.
Data DVDs (IE Games, computer data, etc) will not be using CSS so that CSS key holding area on the DVD-R is ignored anyway. In those cases you can do a bit for bit copy, copy-protection and all, and it will work just as the original.
It's still a good idea. With bookmarks you can't "open in new window"
Left click means 'open in this current window' Middle click means 'open in new window/tab'
Works in bookmarks menu as well.
There is also a settings for the bookmarks menu to Always open any bookmark in a new window or tab (the latter of which is what I do, only using middle click in pages or on other peoples computers)
Just FYI
Re:CmdrTaco drags big brass ones along the ground
on
iPad Review
·
· Score: 1
iPads work in the shower?
For certain low values of time, I bet they do!
But only once...
Re:CmdrTaco drags big brass ones along the ground
on
iPad Review
·
· Score: 1
Not to mention that grandma's arthritic hands aren't going to enjoy this thing. And are you seriously telling me you want to type tricky cli commands on a no-feedback slick-surface touchscreen keyboard? Please.
Personally that is exactly what I planned to use such a device for.
However I will be pairing it with my Apple wireless keyboard over bluetooth, just as I do on my iPhone.
If I recall correctly, a certain symbol key (I'd swear it was ~ , or maybe the | ) was missing on the ipod/iphone onscreen keyboard in the initial firmware versions. Makes some commands very annoying indeed!
Re:Installing non windows won't void your warranty
on
iPad Jailbroken
·
· Score: 1
Installing non windows won't void your warranty, that's just bullshit made up to make Apple seem nicer or at least no worse than Microsoft
The fact it has sense been changed is irrelevant to the fact it was true. And before you point it out, I did say that unless it changed in the past two years (Which is exactly the case)...
I also have the paperwork at work showing this was the case in July of 07, which is when my RMA refusal due to a non-windows OS being installed happened.
Glad to see HP changed their act though! I'll concede on the first point.
Re:Still not worth purchasing
on
iPad Jailbroken
·
· Score: 1
So stop with the childish FUD.
Two years ago none of that was the case. I was informed by both of our vendor reps (As well as from HP) that installing an unsupported OS will void the HP warranty.
To this day they will not (for free anyway) touch a computer without the original HD/OS in it.
I've run into that problem even without Linux involved, as I would not return a computer with an HD in it that had any sensitive data on it, be it windows or not. Now I too keep original HD images around for just that reason.
So either they had a 180 reversal on their Linux policy again in the past year+, or your wife was misinformed (After all, I have been informed of things by HP reps before that were wrong)
Exactly. Another similar point would be human reaction time, something this study does not account for but would be needed to draw such a conclusion.
When this sort of situation happens, someone with quick reactions with a calmer head might realize turning off the engine would halt any acceleration, and limit the damage by keeping things from getting more out of hand than they are.
However there is a subset of people who would have issues doing that, such as the elderly, people driving impaired, driving distracted, on a phone, etc. Without performing that simple emergency procedure of cutting power to the engine, those accidents will easily be moved up to the fatality category and thus appear in their stats.
Slashdot Mirror
ClamAV could have simply become impotent and started filling my log files with warnings about upgrading.
Had to stop reading your fake rant right there.
You clearly do not use clamav, so are not affected by this. You need to hush.
If you installed it anywhere, you would see it DID become impotent and started filling your log files with warnings to upgrade, for half a year.
Your statements do not reflect reality, so it is impossible for anyone to take you seriously.
ICANN has no power of its own. Good luck getting them to do anything for you.
First two hits on google:
ICANN revoking a persons domains:
http://goldsteinreport.com/article.php?article=6371
ICANN Terminates EstDomains for CEO's Fraud Convictions
And ICANN putting the smackdown on an entire registrar:
http://aliasencore.com/p404/parava-networks-registrar-accreditation-revoked.html
Parava Networks Registrar Accreditation Revoked
Plenty more examples. If actually revoking domains means powerless to revoke domains, then their powerless state is mighty powerful!
I have personally even gotten them to revoke a domain from someone else, who had the .com form of what I had .net, org, and .ca in use for. The .com was a clear auction page for the domain starting at a few thousand dollars, and an email to ICANN pointing it out and two weeks time got it unregistered. A day later it was registered in my name, and after a week (To avoid wasting my time in case the squatter wanted to contest) it was live with the other domains on the web server.
Granted I don't think I could hold my breath for two weeks plus :P
but that's still a far cry better from not doing anything for me as you imply.
Read the article.
My bad. Something must be going on with my computer, as two different browsers show no links to any articles in this story summary.
But you got modded +5 insightful, so you and others are clearly seeing links.
Could you do me a huge favor and paste them in reply?
Thanks!
the problem I see with this though is it's not like the domain was stolen ... Now clearly they're being fraudulent WITH the domain, but they obtained it legally, so that makes it a lot harder to legally take away.
You should read the ICANN domain agreement you clicked OK to when registering a domain (All registrars for .com are required to pass that agreement on)
Registering a domain name in bad faith, and/or for the use of fraud, is grounds for domain revocation.
Being legally purchased, and not being stolen, do not factor into ICANNs rules. Those are more legal issues a court would need to address, and only after that happens would it be ICANNs concern.
ICANN can revoke any .com domain on the grounds it is registered in bad faith or used for fraud.
They HAVE done this in the past too.
If you register a domain that sounds similar to an existing business, and also use that website for business, odds are good they can have it revoked from you. If your business line is the same as the existing business, it is guaranteed to be revoked. Being local rules, that the end user agreed to, there is little recourse when ICANN chose to do so, even if they do abuse this vague rule.
http://www.icann.org/en/dndr/udrp/policy.htm
Section 4, subsection A, paragraph III
4. Mandatory Administrative Proceeding.
This Paragraph sets forth the type of disputes for which you are required to submit to a mandatory administrative proceeding. These proceedings will be conducted before one of the administrative-dispute-resolution service providers listed at www.icann.org/udrp/approved-providers.htm (each, a "Provider").
a. Applicable Disputes. You are required to submit to a mandatory administrative proceeding in the event that a third party (a "complainant") asserts to the applicable Provider, in compliance with the Rules of Procedure, that
(i) your domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the complainant has rights; and
(ii) you have no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name; and
(iii) your domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.
For these laughable "protections", I'd be far better off keeping my money under my mattress. It seems to me it should be 100% of the job of the bank to keep my money safe and secure.
To be fair, for those of us that just keep money at a bank, they DO keep it pretty safe and secure.
(Barring the bank going out of business in a tragic way or something of course)
The problem is, as you hinted at in your first post, that by asking for a debit card (Or by not refusing one) you are basically instructing the bank that anyone using this set of 25 digits* has the ability to take money from the account.
*(30 digits if zip is required, but I didn't think that one was enforced by the bank, just CC# CSV2 and exp date.)
As you mentioned, they fully have the ability to use a more secure process and ditch the current system, but they clearly haven't, nor will for the very reasons you gave.
So since that current method to access my money is not secure, it is not an option to me.
People blindly accepting this poor insecure option when they don't need to is also a problem. Of course the banks not even trying to fix things is also a problem. It's just that fixing only one of those two will keep your money safe and secure at the bank, and since only one option is even under your control, it's the only one we can use. (However we can bitch about both still heh)
I fully agree with your stance, and I too do not have a debit card on my main checking or savings accounts. I have one on a spare empty savings account with no overdraft coverage (if it does not have the funds to cover it, it rejects the charges. You have to specially ask for that one these days) that I can transfer money into for the rare time I need such a use.
Although instead of under a mattress, I would have to highly recommend a small fire/water proof safe that fits _under_ the bed and mattress ;}
What is their agenda? (other than to promote lung health, which no reasonable person could criticize)
I can criticize it just fine.
They are MY lungs. Get your own damn pair!
By your logic, it would be just fine for me to pass laws that you are never again allowed to step out of your house, and you already said you are perfectly OK with that and no one could possibly criticize skin health.
I guess the fines are to promote wallet health in addition to deter?
Why is not patching the system acceptable?
Because it is.
What exactly do you expect patching an already rooted system to accomplish? Those patches won't make it any more secure than it was before the patch. Those patches won't fix any of the security problems they fix on a rooted system.
What would the point be?
Best possible case is nothing at all happens and you are just as rooted and insecure as before applying the patches.
Worse possible case is your system now refuses to boot, or reboots in loops, etc.
So you're saying it sucks as a browser, and it's unfair to review it as a browser, because it's not intended to be a good browser? What? Exactly on what basis should it be reviewed?
It's a browser. If I'm reading a review of a browser, then I expect to read a review about how good it is as a browser. If it sucks, then it sucks.
In your case, you can just assume it will definitely suck in all but possibly one way. Compared to any other full browser (or just 'browser' as you call them) it will suck.
That one possible way is if you have an older phone that only has opera mini and can't use any other browsers (Original Razr, I'm looking at you! It's built in browser is less functional than lynx)
In that case, a non-full browser might be better than nothing at all.
Technically speaking, opera mini is NOT a web browser at all. It is a stream viewer application that can display a specific markup language served by opera mini's servers.
The web browser part of the process was between the web server/site you go to, and operas servers. It ends there, translates the webpage into another form, and streams that to your viewer application (Named opera mini)
Looked at that way, it becomes obvious you can't compare it to another totally different class of software known as the web browser, since it literally does not do much of anything a web browser app would do.
(Yes, it stores bookmarks and manages pages/tabs, but still has no html/webpage rendering engine in it)
We can only assume how good of a rendering engine opera used on their servers. I thought it was mentioned they used webkit, but that could easily be wrong.
The main point is that the webpage never makes it to your opera mini client in the first place, so comparing it to a program that DOES render html is silly.
The closest comparison I can think of is comparing remote desktop with a video player, and claiming remote desktop IS a video player simply because you can see a video window opening, but that remote desktop is a really crappy video player application because it doesn't decode video properly, and finally claiming remote desktop is clearly a video player app and must be compared to other video player applications.
Translating your statement:
So you're saying remote desktop sucks as a video player, and it's unfair to review it as a video player, because it's not intended to be a good video player? What? Exactly on what basis should it be reviewed?
Remote desktop is a video player. If I'm reading a review of remote desktop clients, then I expect to read a review about how good it is as a video player. If it sucks, then it sucks.
Can you really not conceptually tell the difference between a video playing at youtube and the content at http://www.homestarrunner.com/ ?
With NoScript installed, they do look pretty much the same ;}
Neither work without the Flash plugin for your browser as well.
To any normal person, that means they are the exact same thing.
Granted though, a slashdotter getting confused is a tad odd and worthy of mocking.
As an aside, I don't get a big rush when I find a problem in someone else's code. Maybe I'm just old and jaded now, but I'm just trying to get everything to work well, finding that someone else didn't do their job doesn't usually make my situation any better (as you indicate here), so I don't relish it.
Additionally this guy has the added burden of relying on this company for what sounds like a major part of their IT infrastructure.
If the software is extremely specialized then it is possible there might only be a couple hundred customers.
An anonymous leak soon (Say within 5 years) if this guy mentioning that he found it would be a simple conclusion to jump to to place blame for an anonymous leak.
Remember, a company is not a court, so evidence and logic are not a requirement in producing an outcome.
I would probably hand the info over to a big whitehat group (anonymously if need be, thou an explanation of the situation will probably get the same response) and have THEM claim discovery and report it to the vendor using responsible disclosure.
This way the group can say "You have ___ weeks to release a fix if you like, but on ____ date we will release this exploit to the public."
It helps in the emotional/illogical areas too, as someone at the vendor whom did correctly suspect the customer, will have a much harder time convincing others of that when such a large face is actively and directly taking the blame.
Additionally the vendors other customers will have no reason to have negative thoughts against this one, if there is an active community in any shape around this software.
Where I work, we have a similar situation with the software package that runs our enterprise.
There is still a couple yahoo message groups where customers can post and talk with each other for ways of solving problems. The vendors staff even monitor the group, and official bug fixes have resulted simply from a single IT guy posting a complaint.
It is a wise idea to remain in good standing with such a community, whom might not realize their soon to be public knowledge security problems are the fault of the vendor for not fixing them, and not this customer for being the messenger of bad news.
They do answer that...
Short version: No
Long version, it's only no while you limit the scope to 'will they _remove_ apps' since no existing apps are coded with the new 4.0 APIs, and you will see this rule only matters for new apps using the new 4.0 api and being newly submitted to the store.
Once they are ready to release an update to their emulator software, it might matter.
If the updates are all to the emulator core to speed things up, and they don't touch the GUI code, it will be accepted just as before.
But if they change their code to use the new multitasking commands, then they will probably get rejected if they use 3rd party tools.
Then again, they might very well have used apples tools, in which case doing all of that will be fine.
It's just common sense that you have to have the platform your tools run on to use the tools.
By that logic you would need an Xbox not a windows PC
Hate to break it to you, but Visual Studio with Xbox SDK does not at all run on the xbox, it runs on Windows.
Just like xcode runs on osx and not the phone.
Since when is an annoyingly-high volume email campaign illegal?
In America? Since before the constitution was ratified, back in the 1800's.
In fact both the 5th and 14th amendments further limit ex parte laws from what Britain used at the time.
Clearly those laws were in place before those amendments were written.
It was 1868 for the 14th, you can look up the rest yourself, but guaranteed it has been illegal since at least 1868.
"removing them" is a change, is it not? ;(
By definition, no
Change is being one thing before, and being a different thing after.
It still has to be a thing to count as a change.
That's ridiculous. How many people who stick modchips in their PS2s, etc are doing it because they want to do homebrew stuff?
I won't answer that question as it isn't related to any topic at hand (article, summary, or parent)
However to make it relevant:
How many people MADE A MODCHIP FROM SCRATCH to stick in their PS2s's because they are doing it to play homebrew stuff?
Zero.
How many PIRATES made a modchip from scratch to put in their PS2?
Zero. (Arguably One)
Also compare that to the fact that only about 10 people/companies made such chips, and your argument falls down.
10 is not many.
With the prior PS3 firmware, there were zero modchips because the people who CAN make them didn't need to.
SO there are zero pirates using them (as they don't exist to use)
Now that sony removed that feature, the PS3 will fall under the same category as all the other consoles your statement would be closer to the truth about.
It is archaic definition bricked or "inconvenient to repair" bricked, as is the new usage.
I think in this situation that is still a fair and correct assertion.
The true definition of bricked is totally unrecoverable.
The pop/current definition in media seems to be 'broken but fixable if one has the knowledge how to do so'
In this case, a video game console in the hands of a normal consumer, I would say 'bricked' is correct if the system becomes non-functional and you can't simply perform the same steps to re-flash it.
In our hands, that is not bricked but just broken.
We know the secret button holding processes to get to that lower boot loader, or where the JTAG pins are on the main board to solder to and reprogram the flash chips directly, etc etc.
But a normal consumer will most likely not have the knowledge that is even possible. Even if they do, they wouldn't be a normal consumer if they had the hardware and skills required.
To them, the only solution is to return it to Sony, or toss it in the trash. That is bricked, even by our definition.
Where did I fail as a father?
Taking your son to CompUSA...or a whorehouse.
Well there goes our Friday plans :/
Doing a straight copy of a DVD doesn't require cracking CSS, you just copy the contents of the disc
Actually it depends on the extent CSS was used.
CSS actually supports quite a few different types of keys.
Some of those keys are in the DVD players CSS-decrypter chip. Others are in a special place at the start of a DVD.
If the latter type of key is used, you will not be able to play a DVD-R with a CSS video on a standard DVD player, because you have just erased the disc keys by not copying them too.
On DVD+-R's that special area is either blank (just plastic there) or are pressed (So not writable) and pre-written with all zeros.
Either way, you can not write a new key in that spot, and the key already there will never match anything.
Placed in a standard DVD player, the player will see the CSS headers, authenticate the auth keys against its built in ones, see that the disc key is needed, read it from the special track, and assuming reading in zeros, attempt to decrypt the video using that key.
It will fail.
Thus, if you read the original DVD video and key, deCSS the video so no encryption key is needed, THEN burn to DVD-R, it will play.
Now granted, this is for video only, and only CSS encrypted video.
Data DVDs (IE Games, computer data, etc) will not be using CSS so that CSS key holding area on the DVD-R is ignored anyway.
In those cases you can do a bit for bit copy, copy-protection and all, and it will work just as the original.
Might that have been what you were thinking?
It's still a good idea. With bookmarks you can't "open in new window"
Left click means 'open in this current window'
Middle click means 'open in new window/tab'
Works in bookmarks menu as well.
There is also a settings for the bookmarks menu to Always open any bookmark in a new window or tab (the latter of which is what I do, only using middle click in pages or on other peoples computers)
Just FYI
iPads work in the shower?
For certain low values of time, I bet they do!
But only once...
Not to mention that grandma's arthritic hands aren't going to enjoy this thing. And are you seriously telling me you want to type tricky cli commands on a no-feedback slick-surface touchscreen keyboard? Please.
Personally that is exactly what I planned to use such a device for.
However I will be pairing it with my Apple wireless keyboard over bluetooth, just as I do on my iPhone.
If I recall correctly, a certain symbol key (I'd swear it was ~ , or maybe the | ) was missing on the ipod/iphone onscreen keyboard in the initial firmware versions.
Makes some commands very annoying indeed!
Installing non windows won't void your warranty, that's just bullshit made up to make Apple seem nicer or at least no worse than Microsoft
http://linux.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/03/27/1753218
Tell it to slashdot and the other news outlets that reported it as fact.
Or at least redirect your bitch fest of whom made it up to someone else.
ah HA
I knew I wasn't crazy or making up stuff
http://linux.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/03/27/1753218
The fact it has sense been changed is irrelevant to the fact it was true.
And before you point it out, I did say that unless it changed in the past two years (Which is exactly the case)...
I also have the paperwork at work showing this was the case in July of 07, which is when my RMA refusal due to a non-windows OS being installed happened.
Glad to see HP changed their act though! I'll concede on the first point.
So stop with the childish FUD.
Two years ago none of that was the case. I was informed by both of our vendor reps (As well as from HP) that installing an unsupported OS will void the HP warranty.
To this day they will not (for free anyway) touch a computer without the original HD/OS in it.
I've run into that problem even without Linux involved, as I would not return a computer with an HD in it that had any sensitive data on it, be it windows or not. Now I too keep original HD images around for just that reason.
So either they had a 180 reversal on their Linux policy again in the past year+, or your wife was misinformed (After all, I have been informed of things by HP reps before that were wrong)
Exactly. Another similar point would be human reaction time, something this study does not account for but would be needed to draw such a conclusion.
When this sort of situation happens, someone with quick reactions with a calmer head might realize turning off the engine would halt any acceleration, and limit the damage by keeping things from getting more out of hand than they are.
However there is a subset of people who would have issues doing that, such as the elderly, people driving impaired, driving distracted, on a phone, etc. Without performing that simple emergency procedure of cutting power to the engine, those accidents will easily be moved up to the fatality category and thus appear in their stats.